Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Waterloo's Importance
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
I was watching a program on the battle of Waterloo and they mentioned how it changed the course of European history. Yet with the changes in tactics and efficiency of the allied forces and all being ready to fight at the same time, if Waterloo had been won by the French would they not have just been defeated in a later battle against the Russians/Austrians/Prussians etc?
-
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
mahros
probably not completely on thread - but you mention allied forces
all i have ever read about waterloo is the actions of french and BRITISH forces - Hougement la Haye sainte - the destruction of the old guard by british units
what were our allies doing at this time - skulking ??
what were the Belgian and dutch troops doing - i have never heard or read about their involvement
do their regiments have waterloo as battle honours ??
st -
Message 3
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
I'm not too strong on Waterloo, but - from what I remember - the Germans played a vital role, as they reinforced Wellington in the afternoon of the battle. Do tell me how far am I off on this one.
-
Message 4
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
Wellington's army was made up of British and Belgian-Dutch forces with some German Units (don't confuse these with the Prussian Army under Blucher).
Something just over half were British.
The main worry was the quality and stamina of the Belgian Dutch forces who had been fighting for Napoleon a year or so before.
Nevertheless despite the misgivings the allies on the whole fought well and bravely. The main attacks however were directed against the British forces.
Note that Wellington was only giving battle on the basis that the Prussian army was coming to assist.
They did albeit hampered by weather, ground and getting themselves reorganised after their defeat at Ligny. -
Message 5
Posted by Essexroundhead (U5331128) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
Mahros
Waterloo brought peace to Europe, but it could also be argued that it resulted in later wars. For the first time in ages Britain & France were at peace. 40 years later we would be allies against the Russians in the Crimean War of 1854-1856, and later two World Wars.
The battle may have brought peace between Britain and France, but it left Prussia as the strongest military power in Western Europe. Otto von Bismarck unified the German states and declared the German Empire in 1871, after the Franco-Prussian War of that year. This in turn, one could argue, sowed the seeds for World War I.
If the French had won Waterloo?.Britain had just emerged from the American War of 1812-14, would the rest of Europe have the stomach for another sustained fight against the forces that had fought from Portugal to Russia? Would the working man have thought maybe life in a so-called meritocracy might be preferable to being a subject of a King or Queen? All conjecture but fascinating to ponder. -
Message 6
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
Thanks for the answers - for 'allies' I meant Russia, Prussia and Austria, all of whom had improved significantly since 1806. The British forces included Dutch and Belgians (I think one regiment ran off but I'm not certain) and the King's German Legion held Le Haye Saint.
In 1815, the Russians and Austrians had also mobilised and with Napoleon apparently off his game even had he won Waterloo (which he arguably should have) I was wondering if he could actually have won an 1815+ war. -
Message 7
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
Unlikely, the rest of Europe had had enough of him and he was not trusted.
Even winning Waterloo (can't see how that would have happened!!!!) the rest of Europe was mobilising and France itself was basically war weary. -
Message 8
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
re La Haye Sainte
but werent the KGL considered British troops - under english command and part of the British army ??
st -
Message 9
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Waterloo's importance is that it ended 25 years and more of almost continuous warfare involving France - both the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. It also ended the career of the man who had dominated European politics for around 20 years - L'Empereur himself.
The nearest comparison I can come up with is the fall of Berlin in 1945.
After Waterloo there were decades of relative peace in Europe until the Crimean war of 1853.
When Napoleon escaped from his exile in Elba in March 1815, the European powers were meeting in Congress at Vienna. Napoleon was declared an outlaw and the ensuing war was against HIM personally not France as a nation.
Various European armies began to converge on France, the Austrians and Russians taking time to mobilise and moving slowly. A cobbled British and Netherlands (the newish kingdom that included both present day Holland and Belgium) army under the Duke of Wellington and a Prussian force under Blucher posed the most immediate threat to France.
In June, acting with his old energy and brilliance, the emperor struck unexpectedly against the Allied/Prussian forces seeking to divide them and defeat them separately.
Napoleon himself defeated Blucher at Ligny, but Marshal Ney, commanding the French left could only manage a stalemate at Quatre Bras against Wellington's forces. However, the latter had to retreat to keep in step with Blucher, who fell back in parallel with his ally, not back towards the Prussian frontier as Napoleon had hoped.
When Marshal Grouchy failed to follow up the French success at Ligny energetically enough, and also did not manage to separate Blucher's and wellington's armies, the Prussian's were able to join with the allied forces at Mont St Jean on the afternoon of 18 June. Their combined forces were enough to overwhelm the French Armee du Nord, which disintegrated. Napoloeon abdicated in Paris within a few days.
Wellington only sttod at Waterloo because he had Blucher's promise of joining him with at least one Prussian corps. If Grouchy had prevented that then Wellington would probably (almost certainly in my view) been defeated.
What would the outcome of that have been, or if Ligny/Quatre Bras had been the decisive victories napoleon had hoped for?
I believe that there is a good chance that if the Emperor had entered Brussels in triumph on 18/19 June 1815, that the other allies (Britain having been defeated and probably forced to evacuate from Antwerp, and with Wellingon dead) would have agreed to negotiations quite quickly. Europe was tired of war and a "constitutional" Napoleon might have been held to be as good as the Bourbons. Alternatively, another brilliant campaign, with a French army boosted by a victory in June, against the Russians and Austrians (akin to the 1814 campaign of France)might have brought them to the negotiating table.
It then all depends on Napoleon's health (would he have died as he did in fact in 1821?). he might have gone to war again to try to regain his son and heir - the King of Rome - from Austria (assuming that had not been a factor in any 1815 peace treaty).
Against his success must be weighed the fact that the Britih might have continued to act as paymasters to renewed continental coalitions, and thus war would have continued or been renewed and Napoleon might eventually have
fallen again. A cause of his defeat in 1815 was suspicion and treachery within his own regime ("Treason!" was a cry heard as the French army broke at Waterloo) and this might have toppled him. What is difficult to evaluate is how far a quick decisive victory in June would have brought opponents round.
But on balance, I do think there is at least an even chance that a victory at Waterloo or previously would have regained Napoleon his throne in at least the medium term and thus have changed the history of Europe.
To take up two points from earlier posts - the King's German Legion (KGL) was part of the British Army and had fought in Spain. George III (still king of GB in 1815) was separately Elector (later king) of Hanover, but the elctorate had been annexed by the French. The KGL comprised Hanoverian citizens, loyal to George III, who had been formed into a military force of all arms. they performed heroically at Waterloo.
Many of the Dutch/belgians at Waterloo had been part of the French army until a year or so earlier and their role and performance in the campaign needs to be seen in that context.
Finally, I see no argument that a defeat at Waterloo would have brought about a Republic in Britain. Notwithstanding the character of the sons of George III (and that king's unfortunate and tragic incapacity) there was no appreciable republican movement in Britain in 1815 or indeed later. the throne would have passed in 1820 to George IV (he was Prince Regent in 1815) as happened anyway.
I assume that Wellington would not have become Prime Minister (his reputation had he lived would have been different) but had the prussians not arrived, I doubt he would have survived Waterloo. It was a miracle he did anyway ("the finger of Providence was upon me...") and I don't think he expected to live out the day anyway - almost all his personal staff and many of his general officers were killed or wounded - Lord Uxbridge - the cavalry commander - lost a leg; The Prince of Orange (heir to the netherlands' throne) was wounded; De Lancey - Quartermaster General and effectively Wellington's chief of staff was mortally wounded; Fitzroy Somerset - the Duke's military secretary lost an arm; Picton was killed outright... I could go on.
European's of the time regarded waterloo as the pivotal movement of their age. It would be said that the 19th century began on 18 June. We should, in my humble opinion, attach equal importance to the battle.
Phil -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Re: message 9.
Phil,
thank you for this interesting contribution. It made me thinking along new ways. Thank you also for the other thought-provoking (last) messages on the several threads that you see if you click on your name. You are a real asset to this messageboard.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
A French victory at Waterloo couldn't have lasted unless Napoleon had a total personality transplant. Since coming to power, he had never made a peace with anyone that was nore than a temporary truce, and there's not the slightest reason to suppose that any patched up peace after Waterloo would have been any more permanent. If one is made, expect war to resume in 1816 if not sooner.
Moreover, by 1815 he had lost his aura of invincibility. The Allies had already driven him all the way from Moscow to Paris, and knew that they could do so again if they had to. They hadn't just seen light at the end of the tunnel, but had actually reached it. So the temptation to press on and finish the job would be pretty strong, regardless of any initial setback. After all, he had defeated them at Dresden in 1813 and at Montmirail in 1814, but they hadn't called off the war on either occasion. My guess is they pick themselves up, dust themselves down and carry on the war. -
Message 12
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
Small nitpick. Waterloo did not make Prussia the strongest military power in Europe. Indeed, until Moltke's Army reforms in the 1860s, it was probably the weakest of the five great powers.
It was the industrial development of the Ruhr in the later 19th century which made Germany into Europe's 800-pound gorilla, and the victors of 1815 had no way of anticipating this. -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
by 1815 he had lost his aura of invincibility Β
I don't think he had any aura of invincibility after he had lost half a million strong Grande Armee - incredibly grand in size indeed for the time - in Russia in 1812. -
Message 14
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
As I said in my post, there are many imponderables about what might have happened if Wellington had lost Waterloo.
But I don't think the outcome was anywhere near as definite as you appear to believe - or that anyone can say so.
I can argue it point by point if you insist, but I set out my case clearly enough I think in my previous post.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Phil -
Message 15
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Phil
****
Are we really all that far apart?
I quite accept that there might have been another temporary peace (like, say, the 1802 Peace of Amiens) had Napoleon won Waterloo and gone on to another couple of victories. Imho, the Allies would have been foolish to do so - given that Napoleon was "on the ropes" for manpower, and having to conscript 16-year-old boys, such a breathing space would have helped him more than it helped his enemies - but foolish things are sometimes done.
The only problem I have is with the idea that any such peace would have been more than a breather. No previous peace ever had been, and despite suffering bloody noses both in 1813 and 1814, the Allies had shown no disposition to throw in the sponge. I just don't see what was "special" or "different" about 1815 which would cause a French victory that year to have any more lasting effect than their endless string of victories over the previous 16 years had done. -
Message 16
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
You obviously need to think harder.
The differences that occur to me, and I do not claim to be comprehensive, are:
Napoleon had returned from exile and successfully reinstated himself;
He would have decisively defeated two of the leading generals of his day (Wellington and Blucher)
He would have entered Brussels in triumph
The bourbons would no doubt have fled to England from Ghent and shown themselves as cowards. Their restoration would have been perceived as a failure. What, other than a fresh restoration would the allies have had to offer as an alternative? Although thta is what happened in fact, Napoleon had then been defeated.
Napoleon claimed that he was now a "constitutional" monarch (OK one could be cynical but maybe he had learned too?)
After a decisive victory he could have consolidated his hold on France, treason and suspicion would have perhaps been less of a problem, and the remaining allies could have blanched at the prospect of a repeat of the Campaign de France of 1814.
Able Marshals like Davout might have been able to be spared from Paris to assist, rather than being kept in the capital for political reasons.
None of the allied generals that I can think of would have been remotely up to out-foxing an on-form Emperor, and may have been demoralised by the fate of Blucher and wellington and the sheer speed of the way they were despatched.
So a few things to think about.
I may be totally wrong, but my reading of C19th perceptions is that they saw waterloo as decisive, in part because they knew if the battle had been lost, things would have been very different.
Phil -
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
read an interesting fact i didnt know yesterday
it was about the fuss recently that the guards bearskins are real bearskins - not imitation
apparently they are worn to celebrate the guards destruction of Napoleons old guard at waterloo - based on their headgear
now i didnt know that !!
st -
Message 18
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
The British Foor Guards (three regiments in 1815 - Ist, 2nd or Coldstream and 3rd or Scots) wore shakos up until that time.
The legend is that the 1st Guards became the "Grendiers" after Waterloo to commemorate their repulsion of the Imperial Guard in a late stage of the battle.
I have no idea whether that is literally true. But the right hand unit in any formation (the company in a battalion) was usually described as the "grenadier" company and was composed of the tallest, fittest troops. Grenadiers had always tended to wear upright headgear (as opposed to tricorns or bicorns) to assist with throwing the grenade (a practice of C17th early C18th date). Thus the bearskin cap as worn by the Grenadiers and Chasseurs of Napoleon's Old Guard counted in that context.
I believe that the British Household Division continues to explore the practicality of alternatives to real bear skins (the product of culling) but that so far nothing suitable has emerged.
Phil -
Message 19
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
i thought grenadier regiments predated waterloo in that they threw nasty bangy things
yes the guards have been looking elsewhere - surely in 2008 there must be something better than killing a bear !!!!
why is it always the right hand formation that is the best - why not the left hand
st -
Message 20
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Phil
Tut, tut. The Coldstream have never accepted that they are the 2nd Regiment of Foot Guards, whatever the Army List may have said at one time or another. Hence the Regimental motto "Nulli Secundus". The Coldstream laid claim to that title in 1670 and never used 2nd of themselves.
The rivalry between the Grenadiers and the Coldstream goes back to the Restoration - the Grenadiers emerged from Charles II's bodyguard in exile, and the Coldstream from Monk's regiment in the Commonwealth Army, which became part of the Household troops when Monk led the Army over to the King.
I believe that the Grenadiers adopted the bearskin along with the title, and the other two regiments adopted it later (with the Irish and Welsh following suit when formed later). The Fusiliers also had a bearskin for a while (may still do so in ceremonial uniform, don't know). -
Message 21
Posted by flipacross (U9997641) on Friday, 5th September 2008
stalteriisok
i thought grenadier regiments predated waterloo in that they threw nasty bangy things Β
As Philip25 (no relation by the way) said in message 18, grenadiers certainly predated Waterloo and they were indeed formed to throw those nasty, bangy (and not terribly reliable) things
There were no formal grenadier regiments in British service though. On campaign however, grenadier companies could be detached from their parent battalions and amalgamated on an ad-hoc basis. This was usually done at sieges or for storming entrenched positions but the practice had died out by the Napoleonic period.
There is a good short history of grenadiers at
(it is on the site of the Upper Canada Military Re-enactment Society)
No mention of why they chose to stand on the right of the line though.
Obviously because of the inherent bias of the system towards right handers
(speaking as an oppressed left-hander myself).
Also, although it doesn't say it on the page as far as I can see (which isn't usually all that far), British grenadiers adopted the bearskin in place of the mitre cap in the period between the Seven Years War and that little disagreement in the colonies. 1768 according to wiki:
Phil -
Message 22
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Friday, 5th September 2008
The right of the line has always been the 'position of honour' in a battleline, dating back to the time of spears and shields - when the troops on the right would be unshielded from any flank attack.
From the Spartans onwards, it has often been a contention over which troops should have the honour of standing on the right.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.