Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Attack of Imperial Guard

In my view, this is the weakest section of the article. Was the Guard attack actually so much of a danger?

I'm happy to see credit given to the Dutch and General Chasse. But the sources given to support the idea that the line was really in danger of breaking seem to be a 1909 Dutch history. This is rather old (!) and from a particularly nationalistic period of historical writing.

The statement attributed to Marshall Ney (which is contemporaneous) is surely right. The Guard was simply too weak to break the line unless they did so very quickly. They also attacked in formations (squares) which were least likely to break a line which outnumbered them. (If Napoleon himself ordered this, he must have done so on the basis that they were likely to be attacked by cavalry, as he had seen done to D'Erlon. But even if his remaining cavalry was blown, they could nonetheless have offered flank protection to columns). While the Brunswickers did retire, and the 30th and 73rd Foot gave ground, Wellington rallied them (and then returned to Maitland's Guards). The Prince of Orange had been wounded about half an hour earlier (when Ney had asked for, and been refused, reinforcements for the centre).

--Markd999 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guard were fresh and most of the units they were sent against were anything but fresh. This is a big advantage in a battle of attrition, such as Waterloo was. Also, the Guard were as fearsome as their reputation suggested; anyone doubting the capabilities of the Old/Middle Guard need only look at how only two of their battalions recaptured Plancenoit at bayonet-point during Waterloo. Urselius (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Both points are valid. Tired and worn-down units would be at a psychological disadvantage to fresh troops (see the 30th and 73rd inching back), and might well break at bayonet-point even to lesser numbers. But the psychological disadvantage was greatly reduced by the fact that the Guard advanced in battalion squares, rather than en masse, and as long as the troops opposing them stood and fired, this formation made it virtually impossible to reach them with the bayonet.

I'm not familiar with Dutch historiography of the battle, but the 1909 source for their contribution does manifestly include episodes which took place before the Guard were sent forward (the wounding of the Prince, for example), and even recent and decent British historians seem to miss it out, which is not now likely on nationalistic grounds. I think what has happened is that historians (and novelists, and Napoleon) have liked to imagine that - because the repulse of the Guard set off the final French collapse - that an Allied collapse at this point might equally have happened. But it was not so dramatically symmetrical. It would be a help if this passage could benefit from recent Dutch scholarship.

Markd999 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that you mean by the "1909 Dutch source" Bas, F de; Wommersom, J. De T'Serclaes de (1909), La campagne de 1815 aux Pays-Bas d'après les rapports officiels néerlandais, vol. volumes: I: Quatre-Bras. II: Waterloo. III: Annexes and notes. IV: supplement: maps and plans, Brussels: Librairie Albert de Wit {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)? As the title suggests this source contains in vol. III a number of not previously published archivalia, among others Dutch after-battle reports. So this book is actually better sourced than a lot of the other books and sources in the article. It may be that there is a "nationalistic bias", but hey, if one compares this to the many 19th-century British books about the subject, is this not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? In any case the book lays a number of Siborne's libels to rest (speaking of "nationalist bias"). The reason why this book has not made much of an impression in the Anglophone historiography may be that (to my knowledge) it has never been translated into English, which was probably too high a bar for British historians.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Siborne's libels" accurately reflect the opinions of the British officers who were his sources. Siborne was not an eyewitness, but as a junior member of the army of occupation in 1815 he would have been in an ideal position to gain recent first-hand accounts. He later solicited extensive correspondence from eyewitnesses, but only from British and ex-King's German Legion officers. If you, as I have done, compare Siborne's history and the texts of the letters he received then there is an obvious correlation between them. If Siborne is accused of bias, then the officers he relied on for information must also be accused, en masse, of equal bias. In an ideal world Siborne would have attempted to gain accounts from Dutch-Belgian, Brunswicker, French etc. sources, but he wasn't aiming his book at anything but a British audience. Back projection of modern ideas of historical probity onto a mid-nineteenth century writer is not only inappropriate it is downright silly. Urselius (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Call me silly then, but I am not alone in that respect. David Hamilton-Williams, whose "Hamilton-Williams, David (1993), Waterloo. New Perspectives. The Great Battle Reappraised, London: Arms & Armour Press, ISBN 978-0-471-05225-8" is one of the references with the article and who is cited at several places, spends his "Introduction: Captain William Siborne" on deprecating the work of Siborne. It may be true that many of the officers who replied to his questionnaire were critical about the conduct of the Dutch-Belgian troops but hey, what else is new about the opinions of British soldiers about their allies throughout the ages? For instance, in contemporary literature about the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland of 1799 everything that went wrong was deemed the fault of the Russians. So I don't think one should give too much credence to what British soldiers have to say about foreigners; I think their xenophobia is more or less "innate". I would have been surprised if they would have had any praise for their allies. In any case, I gladly refer you to the chapter I just referred to in Hamilton-Williams' book to answer your argument. He also points out that the foreign criticism of Siborne's "history" was immediate, so what I wrote is not just "...Back projection of modern ideas of historical probity ", it just reflects what proper historians (though mostly not British historians) have thought since the 1840s.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Hamilton-Williams (not his real name) has been widely discredited as a historian for falsifying sources. If you look up his name and 'primary sources' the whole sorry history will become apparent. The furore surrounding H-W was in part the reason for his publisher 'Arms and Armour' going out of business. I have tried hard to get references to the works of H-W and Hofschroer (guilty of similar falsifications and other misdemeanours) to be removed from the article, with no success hereto. I would reiterate that they are fundamentally unreliable. Urselius (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing so convincing as a good old argumentum ad hominem. Did Hamilton-Williams also kick his dog and beat his wife? In any case, I am sure he did not falsify his sources in the book I referred to. He uses the work of François de Bas this discussion started about extensively, and other than your hero Siborne, he used reputable primary sources. So I am glad that you did not succeed in your exercise in censorship. I think your problem is that you are unable to read foreign languages, like the French of the book I am talking about. Originally, the citation in the article (it was a cite web, originally) contained a link to the Google Books version of the book, so anybody who was able to read French, would be able to judge for his or her self.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to use the work of a discredited historian, who it has been shown invented primary sources in his book 'Waterloo: New Perspectives', then there is little anyone can usefully say to you. If a historian is capable of inventing sources then any opinions he or she presents have to be treated with extreme caution, if not rejected out of hand. Your position seems entirely false; if Siborne is damned for not consulting all available sources, then H-W should be doubly damned for falsifying sources. I have a working knowledge of French - out of necessity, I translated 3 old scientific papers (dating to the late 1970s) from French into English some years ago - though even the French tend to write science in English these days. Urselius (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, 19th century British military xenophobia was far from universal. British military figures praised the Portuguese soldiers in the Peninsular War, one calling them 'the fighting cocks of the army'; the Sikhs and Gurkhas gained a high reputation in Britain for bravery and martial prowess. This also extended to some enemies, no-one could doubt the contemporary British admiration for the bravery of the Zulu and Maori warriors. Urselius (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Humbug and bullfeathers, there were numerous accounts of the "cowardly Dutch" thought you don't see it in modern historians, thank God. But, there are enough old histories out there that you can follow the patch if you care to. Part of the problem with using Silborne too much. Personally, I prefer Chesney. The Guard was not going to break through, 5 battalions were either in Placinoit, the Woods south of Placinoit, or close by acting as a reserve for the rest of the Guard at Placinoit. What it the Guard's attach did do was use up the last reserve available to Nappy at that point of the battle, after the Guard retreated there was nothing left to plug a breach in the French line.Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Uxbridge/Anglesey bracketed two cavalry officers for censure in his published correspondence, the colonel of the Hanoverian Cumberland Hussars and the brigadier commanding the Dutch-Belgian heavy cavalry. The first officer was court-martialled and dismissed from the Hanoverian service. The ADC sent to order, unsuccessfully, the Cumberland Hussars not to quit the field (they fled towards Brussels) was the same man who pointed out to Uxbridge that the Dutch-Belgian heavies were not following him as he tried to lead them in a charge (as related in his own published correspondence). We are faced with a number of questions. Were both Uxbridge and his ADC lying about the behaviour of the Dutch-Belgian heavies? Were they lying about the Dutch-Belgian heavies, but truthful about the Cumberland Hussars? Was the colonel of the Cumberland Hussars cashiered because he was a subject of the King of England (as King of Hanover) and the Dutch-Belgian brigadier not cashiered because he was a subject of an ally? What motivation would Uxbridge and his ADC have to lie about the behaviour of the Dutch-Belgian heavies? What motivation would the Dutch-Belgian cavalry officers (and subsequent Dutch or Belgian historians) have to gloss over a very inglorious incident (if Uxbridge and his ADC etc. were not lying)? Do modern historians shy away from mentioning the incident due to the pressure to be politically correct, to fall in with revisionist tendencies and avoid being labelled as jingoistic? I cannot help thinking that a commander-in-chief of cavalry would have retained a very sharp memory of trying to induce a brigade of cavalry under his command (the Prince of Orange placed them under Uxbridge's command a few days before Waterloo) to charge and being unsuccessful, while the officers of this formation would have a great deal of inducement to forget that the incident ever happened. Urselius (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wellington would be surprised: in his dispatch after the Battle of Waterloo he singled out Uxbridge's Bête Noire, the Dutch general Trip by name for praise (one of only two Dutch officers; the other's name is probably misspelled, but Wellington may have intended to mention Chassé). So I think we should forget this old chestnut. The article does the right thing and does not take sides in this controversy.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wellington was writing immediately after the battle and was evidently unaware of all that had occurred. Von Hacke of the Cumberland Hussars was not immediately arrested, some considerable time passed before he was placed under arrest. In the end either Anglesey and Seymour, his ADC, were lying or Trip disobeyed a direct order from his commanding officer in battle, there is no middle ground here. Urselius (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The main reason why the Guard failed in the final charge, was because Zeitan's Prussians broke through the French line on Wellington's left flank, and their cavalry were streaming across the field behind the Guard as they advanced on the British/Dutch line. The Guard obviously noticed this, realised that their attack was now pointless, and tried to get back before the Prussians could seal off their escape. See Chesney and Uffindell, as cited in the last paragraph of "Zieten's flank march". British histories tend to gloss over this by saying "at about the same time" the Prussians also broke through, but these two sources make it clear that the Prussians were through the French line in force while the Guard attack was still in progress. Interesting, no?

A bit of context always helps. The Cumberland Hussars were all volunteers, with little training or experience, who largely spoke no English. It was recognised at the time, as well as at a subsequent enquiry, that they were never battle-ready, but they were dragged in anyway. They were held in reserve for most of Waterloo, but took heavy casualties from artillery fire through the day, and Von Hacke himself was wounded. Some of them fled to Brussels, but most retired in good order. Von Hacke was eventually court-martialled on the repeated request of his own officers. The regiment was eventually disbanded, but was never officially accused of misconduct as a unit.

Re the Dutch-Belgian cavalry, there are actually acres of middle ground. Perhaps the order to charge was a stupid order, and the cavalry officers knew better than the British staff officer? Perhaps the cavalry had been ordered to hold their position "no matter what”, and the British staff officer was ordering them to disobey the standing orders of a higher ranking commander? Perhaps there was simply a language problem – it seems to have happened quite frequently in that campaign? Perhaps modern historians shy away from mentioning the incident because the matter was merely a simple misunderstanding? Perhaps modern historians shy away from mentioning the incident because the British staff officer had stuffed up on the day, and they are protecting the British brand rather than the Dutch brand?

The cavalry in question had served valiantly during the battle, and their commander was praised by his superiors for his performance – why should we assume that they had failed "ingloriously" in this particular incident? On the other hand, senior British officers lied shamelessly, including Wellington himself, whenever they thought it prudent to do so. Perhaps the British staff officer in question had "a great deal of inducement" to "misremember" that incident?

Wdford (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All the Dutch-Belgian cavalry had been placed under the command of Uxbridge. Any brigadier who is unable to recognise his commander-in-chief deserves cashiering. There was precisely one lieutenant general of cavalry in the Anglo-allied army, Uxbridge was also the deputy commander of the whole army, so must have been well known to the officers. There were very few general officers of British hussars on the field, so even his uniform should have been a bit of a give-away. I think that not recognising him or misunderstanding him is not a valid defence. So you think that Uxbridge and his ADC had sufficient incentive to lie, and lie publicly. What could that incentive possibly be? Remember that at the time calumny on this sort of scale could result in a duel, and Uxbridge certainly duelled. The idea that Uxbridge and his ADC colluded, years after the event, to concoct a spurious incident is simply ridiculous. Their accounts of the Dutch heavies and the Cumberland Hussars are related in letters in much the same manner, if they were accurate in condemning the latter, why should their condemnation of the former be any less truthful? The defence of the D-B heavies is often based on accounts of them conducting successful charges during the battle, but it does not exonerate them in the specific circumstances related by Uxbridge and his ADC. The D-B heavies had just witnessed Uxbridge lead the Household Brigade in a charge against Ney's belated combined arms attack, and them be halted and driven off by musketry, much depleted. In this circumstance the reluctance of the D-Bs is understandable, but it does not excuse disobeying the order of a superior officer in action. Urselius (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there are better usages for this article than throwing various nationalities under the bus. Given the number of accounts on other allied contingents by British officers that were proven wrong. There were Prussian cavalry units so poorly trained that if they started a charge they literally couldn't stop. Prussian artillery fought so poorly that Clausewitz was complaining that it cost the army the battle at Ligny. I assure you it wasn't fighting any better at Waterloo. Two Prussian musketeer battalions were so unimpressed with the Old Guard unit facing them they drove it off at bayonet point. In this article as it sits right now, we have 1st Corps arriving 2 hours later then it did. All that is untalked about in the article. Find something better to support.Tirronan (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I never thought that Trip failed to recognise Uxbridge, merely that he may have had good reason to ignore him – assuming that Uxbridge's subsequent claims on this point were fully accurate and truthful to begin with. It has also been noted that a number of misunderstandings occurred that day due to the language barrier. I have not seen any source stating that Trip spoke good English, far less that Uxbridge spoke any Dutch.

Both would have spoken French, Trip was an officer in the French army for a time and all English gentlemen were taught French, along with dancing, as a required social accomplishment. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Trip wasn't British, and Uxbridge was only his temporary coalition commander – who had manifestly failed to impress his subordinates with his performance and judgement. Trip's brigade was one of the units that had to rescue the British cavalry after Uxbridge lead a huge charge off into the distance, where he lost control of his force, they ruined their horses and they nearly got wiped out. Then the D-B cavalry watched the same Uxbridge lead the survivors off on another mindless cavalry charge against a superior French column and get shredded, and now here the man is again, demanding that the D-B's follow him in yet another hare-brained cannon-fodder charge. Any rational officer would have told Uxbridge to eff off, and presumably Dutch generals were promoted for their ability to think rationally. Montgomery repeatedly disobeyed Eisenhower in Normandy, so why judge Trip any more harshly – especially when Uxbridge was clearly wrong?

What incentive might Uxbridge have had to lie about things thereafter? Well, he had spent much of the day pointlessly feeding Allied cavalry units into the shredder, and he ended the day by getting his own leg blown off. Perhaps, once he recovered from the surgery, he was feeling a bit defensive?

Wdford (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In an allied army the chain of command of necessity cuts across national military boundaries. There are cases of subordinates attempting to evade orders to conserve their commands. At Waterloo a cavalry corps commander attempted to keep the carabinier brigade out of Ney's grand charges, by positioning them in low ground out of sight. However, when Ney became aware of their existence, the corps, divisional and brigade commanders involved obeyed orders and committed the carabiniers to the charge. This is a very different scenario than disobeying a direct order, like Trip. You omit to mention that the charge of the British heavies, a mere two brigades, routed the attack of a whole infantry corps, and a brigade of cuirassiers! There is plenty of evidence that the British heavies were not 'nearly wiped out' - the officers of the Union Brigade and a KGL Hussar officer (describing the Scots Greys) recorded that each regiment was reorganised from three to two squadrons after the charge. Six squadrons of cavalry is not a negligible force. I notice that Barbero, an Italian and therefore without a nationalistic axe to grind, describes the Trip and Uxbridge affair with no caveats as to the truthfulness of the Uxbridge/Seymour accounts. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Barbero, an Italian and therefore without a nationalistic axe to grind, describes the British heavy cavalry as having been effectively wiped out in the grand charge, as do many other sources, although obviously some troopers did survive to fight on – mainly due to having been rescued by the light cavalry units and the much-maligned "D-B heavies". The subsequent counter-charges were undertaken largely by the light cavalry units and the much-maligned "D-B heavies". Some charges were undertaken by some heavy brigade units too, seemingly those units that had been kept in reserve during the "glorious" main charge. Of the Uxbridge charge just before the Trip incident, Siborne describes the Household Brigade as being "so much reduced in numbers" that this attack failed. Barbero says of this event that: "The few remaining squadrons of the Household Brigade were sent forward in yet another disastrous charge, after which they were obliged to form up in the rear, deployed in one line instead of two, in order to make an impression". No wonder Trip was unimpressed with the cannon-fodder decisions of Uxbridge, and declined to participate in his antics.

Barbero describes the Trip incident very briefly indeed, and passes no judgement on Trip. Siborne is a bit more hyperbolic, but then Siborne makes no effort to hide his hero-worship of Uxbridge, and we have already discussed the bias of Siborne's sources. Ney's commanders were all French, as far as I can tell, not coalition troops, so this comparison is a bit weak. Wellington's army was largely non-British, and some units (such as Trip's brigade) had been part of the French army opposing the British not long before Waterloo, so had not yet been indoctrinated into the British attitude of blindly obeying stupid orders. Back projection of modern ideas of coalition chains of command onto mid-nineteenth century officers is not only inappropriate, it is downright silly.[User:Wdford|Wdford]] (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I have to take exception to virtually everything you have said. The Prince of Orange had placed the D/B cavalry under Uxbridge's orders. This means that they had no wiggle-room whatsoever if given a direct order from Uxbridge. Trip, in disobeying a direct order on the field of battle, should have been cashiered like the commander of the Cumberland Hussars. Also you are just parroting uninformed historians and have no concept of the physiology of horses if you think that cavalry cannot recover their ability to make an effective charge given an hour or more of rest. Urselius (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you waited 5 months to continue this thread, but fine.

Commanders ALWAYS have wriggle-room - that is the difference between commanders and sheep. Trip was on the scene, unlike you and Siborne, he had observed Uxbridge in all his rampant stupidity throughout the day, he had carried out one rescue already, and maybe he was able to see clearly that Uxbridge was suffering from heat-stroke - which the hero-worshipping Siborne somehow failed to report? Maybe Trip just realized that Uxbridge had completely lost the plot, and he exercised his discretion as a general officer. Maybe, like the Commonwealth commanders in the Western Desert in 1941, he had privately been told by his government to not allow incompetent British generals to use his men as cannon fodder, and he knew that his government would back him up - perhaps that is why he was never court-martialed for this? For the invasion of Normandy in 1944, Churchill placed Montgomery under the direct command of Eisenhower, but yet Montgomery repeatedly ignored and disobeyed Ike, and Ike was powerless to fire a coalition general without the intervention of Brooke - who was Monty's direct commander, but also his biggest patron and protector-at-large. The Cumberland Hussars, on the other hand, were technically British troops, and were forced to accept cannon-fodder orders.

No, the Cumberland Hussars were troops of the Kingdom of Hanover. Hanover and Gt. Britain were in personal union; though their kings were the same person, there was no unity of military structures. When William IV died, his niece Victoria, under British law, inherited the British throne; however, Salic Law operated in Hanover, and his brother Ernest, Duke of Cumberland became king of Hanover, thus breaking the personal union. The wiggle room of army commanders from different nations overseeing complex campaigns when in alliance, is somewhat different to the situation of a brigade or divisional commander being given a direct order while actually in combat, as the cannon-balls were flying. Urselius (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your remark about "uninformed historians" - I am referring to Barbero, whom you introduced into this debate, and Siborne, who despite his naked bias is hardly "uninformed".

"Uninformed" in this context - they have swallowed the received wisdom about the destruction of the British heavies uncritically and have not examined the eyewitness accounts written by the men of the heavy cavalry (mostly officers) about what happened in the charge and what the regiments did subsequently. Such uninformed historians include Barbero and Chandler, otherwise well-respected authorities. Urselius (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I likewise don't see the relevance of your comments about the physiology of horses. The ability of a horse to recover from a hard gallop depends on many things - the strength and condition of the individual animal, how well it has been fed in recent weeks, how hard it has had to work in recent actions and journeys to get to this battlefield, the weather on the day and the condition of the ground underfoot, the weight and skill of its rider, the topography over which it had to charge, the speed and distance of the charge itself, the availability of water and shade etc in the hours prior to the charge, and the availability of water and shade etc during the recovery phase. These horses were probably far from optimally conditioned. In addition to physical exhaustion, horses also suffer from nervous exhaustion - just like humans do. Horses are very sensitive to loud noise - their ears are much more sensitive than humans, who also suffer from shell-shock and concussion etc - and horses are herbivores who really don't like the smell of blood. Nonetheless, my points earlier were actually that the British cavalry had been depleted by losses, not just by wearing out their horses - as is clearly stated by both of these "well-informed" sources.

Please clarify your point/s? Wdford (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about trained war-horses. Whatever other deficiencies they had, the British cavalry had good horseflesh and were well trained in individual combat. Horses were inured to gunshots, loud noises in general and otherwise disturbing sights, smells and movements by careful graduated exposure. If they had not been so trained they would have been useless on campaign, despite harsh bits and spurs. Urselius (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Still wrong. I accept that one does not encourage a corporal to question orders, however insane they may seem, but generals ALWAYS have the right – and in fact the responsibility – to apply their own judgement. Especially when the cannon-balls were flying, and especially if the incompetent senior officer was ordering them to lead their men into the path of the cannon-balls for no good reason. Based on the situation as it stood before him, and the poor performance of Uxbridge on the day, Trip would have been irresponsible to obey the order to commit his men to yet another moronic suicidal charge. Your insistence that Trip should have been punished for refusing to obey a clearly-stupid order is most curious. The person who should have been cashiered that day was Uxbridge. Probably he was saved by his wounds, by his title, by his reputation and by the fact that the British Army usually rewarded incompetent generals with knighthoods and promotions when they messed up horribly – even as late as WW2.

It is also interesting that you regard the recognised authorities as "uninformed" when they disagree with your POV, but accept that they are wonderful sources when they agree with you. A defensive primary source insisting that his squadron had still been effective, is not the same as a secondary source with a better perspective and less of a personal bent - hence the general requirement to use secondary sources.

Military horses and mules etc were trained to tolerate artillery and the screams of mutilated stable-mates, but no horse – or human – can ever be "inured" by "exposure". Too much exposure leads to shell-shock and/or PTSD in humans, and animals are now known to be very sensitive as well. Read up a bit more.

Animals can be conditioned - I am a zoologist. Urselius (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have been "conditioning" animals by subjecting them to painfully loud noises and the smell of fresh blood, then you better hope the RSPCA is not reading this thread. Wdford (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Urselius actually only stated and shared knowledge of such an existence, which I'm sure the RSPCA are well aware of - and humans since the dawn of domesticating and rearing animals; conditioning can take the form of techniques that are not as grisly as those you mention too. Joey123xz (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

However, you are still avoiding the FACT that Uxbridge had steadily ruined the British heavy cavalry through the course of the day, that the damage would have been even worse had the D/B "heavies" not helped to rescue the British survivors, that Trip is acknowledged to have performed well on the day, and that Trip was well within his rights as a coalition general to refuse to lead his men to mindless disaster at the whim of an addled Brit. Hence, no court-martial for him. Also, no court-martial for any of the Commonwealth generals who told incompetent British generals to eff-off at various junctures through WW2.

Wdford (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You have obviously ground your axe to a mere nub - no more to say. Urselius (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to be back after a long absence and starting off fresh chat here for 2020. I missed a lively debate here so I'll belatedly add some more food for thought. Disobeying direct orders which are suicidal or seemingly so is nothing inglorious. Following suicidal orders in military history has annihilated entire armies, corps, divisions, battalions, companies - soldiers lives and futures obliterated forever by insanely conceived orders; officers and generals disobeying suicidal orders are not being cowardly nor impertinent; more often is the case is that they are overwhelmed in the act of saving the lives of their soldiers under their command. In WW2 most strikingly, Von Paulus did so at Stalingrad defying Hitler's last stand orders.
At Waterloo, The Scots Greys' commander, Colonel Hamilton, was last observed beseeching the Scots Greys in the valley amidst their shattered French 1st Corps to 'Charge the guns!' of the French 'Grand Battery' on the ridge above them instead of smartly ordering the then well-numbered Greys back to their own lines; obeying this ambitious* order the Greys were practically decimated in that legendary charge; the subsequent numbers of them that recollected for battle thereafter being barely 60 troopers - barely more than 20% of their original strength - practically on the verge of wiped out; though the two Heavies Brigades' numbers built-up considerably by the next day when the unaccounted for troopers returned. The Netherlands Army cavalry officer command of 1815 had a paradox; some officers gaining command based not on experience but social status privilege only, and on the other hand there were the excellent veteran cavalry commanders formerly from service in Napoleon's army. The one advantage French cavalry had over the British was being better led and trained in terms of tactics and discipline. So, it's not hard to imagine the apprehensions of these 'foreigner' commanders rising towards Uxbridge ordering madcap charges at every perceived threat real or imagined.
The French dead were stacked deep at the walls of La Haye Sainte because of dutifully following orders to keep charging futilely against the intact strongpoint - until defenders' ammo ran out and finally the idea of setting the barn roof ablaze by cannons was considered. Let's also take the case of KGL Brigade General Ompetda and his tragic episode later in the day. What is not often mentioned or generally known, is that his infamous suicidal order he obeyed, to support the retreat of survivors of the garrison fleeing La Haye Sainte with his own KGL battalion was actually given by his immediate superior, General Alten. Ompteda emphatically defied the carrying out the order initially - based on the ominous facts of the situation - and thus to save the lives of a whole battalion of his soldiers. Alten quickly brought the Prince of Orange into the desperate dispute. The Prince firmly sided with Alten, for whatever his reason, and obliged the destitute Ompteda to carry out the order; worse - the order was to attack in line despite the very well known threat of sudden French cavalry attacks materializing from concealing gentle folds in the valley terrain below Ompetda's position on the ridge. So duty to obey an order prevailed and Omteda simply marched knowingly to his and the battalion's doom - overwhelmed in moments as predicted by a shocking French cavalry charge.
An actual cavalry charge is a short dash usually spurting from a horse-march or gallop. They would get easily blown after a couple of hours of charges and the draining melees that may ensue. At Waterloo the horses were ridden uphills, over sodden wheat-tramples/ mud-clay fields with bodies and cannons to stumble upon; case in point were the decimated Greys who were resigned to endure the rest of the battle in a few local counterattacks but mostly carbine duels with French cavalry no doubt too equally blown to charge at them too; I'd assume the Household Brigade's subsequent charges during/ after the French cavalry charges were limited to short bursts of exhausted galloping.
Though it may not be duty to disobey a suicidal order, a calm officer will often yield to their human side to not destroy their command 'any further' than seems necessary. In another barely mentioned episode of disobeying orders in the battle; the indefatigable La Haye Sainte commander, Major Baring, implored his sheltering sturdy fellow survivors of the former farmhouse siege to stoically move up to the front and continue their fight - but they had had enough; though willing to stay on in their last stand at the farmhouse until untenable, now they considered Baring's desperation too much to tolerate; they defiantly remained in their sheltered position. In some authorian-led armies such disobedience could be a death sentence or near-harsh punishment, but in an army with lesser demons prevailing, commanders-in-chiefs are relegated to wishing or fantasizing such executions of disobedient officers; similar to Napoleon's vociferous rants about General Dupont and his surrender after the battle of Baylen, and against Marmont for the surrender of his forces in 1814 at Paris (actually first connived and instigated by Joseph Bonaparte's 'order' to undertake what Napoleon attributed to as treason but against Marmont instead).
There's a book I'm currently reading called 'Men at Arnhem' by then Major G.Powell commander of C coy 156th Parachute Battalion. He writes a very smart account of his role in the Oosterbeek Perimeter in the 1944 Market Garden debacle. His book is heavily laced with command and leadership arguments intertwined in the hourly rigours and missions he was involved in; often he talks about why orders needed to be carried out and at the same time gave sound arguments about why generals, captains, sergeants would give up on an assigned order rightly or wrongly, logically or not, saving one's command from destruction while may be imperiling the bigger picture ..... Following orders can seem to be a simple construct but it's not in reality..... Joey123xz (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Gentle reminder of WP:NOTAFORUM (Hohum ^@) 16:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

How long do you think that it takes for a blown horse to 'recover its wind'? Between the charge of the British heavies and the next time any of them was actively moving again was over an hour. A blown horse, like any mammal, has an oxygen debt caused by anaerobic respiration. A horse given 30 minutes of rest will be able to move about quite normally again, maybe not as fresh as before exertion, but still capable of a canter or even a gallop. Urselius (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Anglo- or British- or something else entirely

The term "Anglo-allied" is used throughout the article. "Anglo-" very simply is an adjective denoting "English". The sovereign state in question with whom other states were allied was Britain. The Kingdom of England had ceased to exist over a century before. If, as claimed, sources use the term "Anglo-" in this context (all of them?), it doesn't make it any less inaccurate and doesn't mean we are obliged to prepetuate the error; cf. the common misuse of Russian- instead of Soviet-, regarding that state in that period of history. I know that, for example and on the rare occasion it happens, BBC journalists are rapped over the knuckles if using Anglo- when they mean British-.

"British" is used throughout the article, and in much greater abundance. Surely it's better for consistency of terminology, as well as of clarity of meaning, to maintain this throughout.

That said, both "Anglo-allied" and "British-allied" are pretty clunky terms and perhaps a neater one should be used anyway. The term seems to be being employed solely to denote which army is being referred to, not specifically to denote the prominence of one state's armies in that force. "Coalition" (or "Seventh Coalition") migh be able to be used but because of the ambiguity of the term I'm unclear if it is being employed in the article, and consistently, to denote coalition forces that were not Prussian from those that were. The Prussians were, after all, also allies. Was who led the force more defining? Those that know the history better can gauge what may be neater, more accurate, less ambiguous. Would it be correct to say, I don't know "British-led" "Wellington-led", something else? "Anglo-allied" doesn't fit the bill on a number of counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must conform to usage in the body of relevant literature - as this is the English Language Wikipedia, this needs to be usage in English Language sources. They overwhelmingly use the construct "Anglo-allied" when referring to the army led by Wellington, mostly for the reasons outlined by yourself regarding the Prussians. As editors we cannot ignore usage and impose our own opinion, however logical it might be. That is the bottom line. Urselius (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also plenty of more general usage where "Anglo-" is used as a synonym for "British-" or "UK-" - Anglo-American, Anglo-Indian, Anglo-Dutch Wars, Anglo-Boer War - obviously not everyone associated with these was English. One of my gt-grandfathers fought in the Anglo-Boer War, and he was most definitely Irish. Urselius (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, if this is a standard terminology, we should indeed use it but because of the likely confusion from its inaccuracy and ambiguity, the terminology should be clarified in the article. I'd be fine with that.

This would apply equally to any other articles where a standard usage is ambiguous, confusing or inaccurate, if it isn't clarified therein already. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Or just link to Anglo, where it's use cases are explained? (Hohum ^@) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Linking to an article doesn't alert anyone that the term may mean something other than what they think. Even if someone does follow the link, at best it may make them wonder which usage is being employed, if they chance upon that part of the large article; it won't tell them which usage. And it doesn't address the aspect of Prussia also being an ally. Having the inaccuracy and ambiguity clarified in the article in one or two sentences would deal with it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply explain the composition of the "allied" army in the lead section, and clarify the relationship to the Prussian army? It will cost one extra sentence. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To "a British-led allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington, and a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal Blücher" insert ", conventionally referred to by historians as the "Anglo-allied army" after the word "Wellington"? The term could be reffed there or in the Armies section of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more along these lines:

A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition: a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal Blücher, and an army consisting of units from the UK, the German Legion, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick and Nassau, commanded by the British Duke of Wellington and referred to in older sources as the Anglo-allied army.

Accurate, specific, and understandable? Wdford (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I see; yes, it's all of those. If it's a term used in older sources, is there a term that newer ones use? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to many "new" sources, as I mainly use Siborne and Chesney etc. (Chesney uses the term "Allied", and Siborne usually uses "Anglo-Allied"). However per a quick search, Andrew Uffindell and Michael Corum (2002), Alessandro Barbero (2013), Brendan Simms (2014), Gareth Glover (2014), Robert Kershaw (2014), John Hamilton (2014), Alan Forrest (2015) and Nick Lipscombe (2016) all use the term "Allied". Andrew Roberts (2001) and David Zabecki (2014) use the term "Anglo-Allied", and I'm sure you can find others who do likewise. However do they use that term because it is correct, or merely to follow Siborne - or perhaps for nationalistic reasons? Mmmmmmm. Wdford (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I imagine for clarity and conciseness. Urselius (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"Allied" would obviously be more concise than "Anglo-Allied". "Allied" would also be more clear than "Anglo-Allied", since the "Anglo" component of the army was less than 40% of the total, and a lot of those were Irish rather than British. All in all, the phrase "Anglo-Allied" is a misnomer and an anachronism, and it should probably be replaced by "Allied" - as many modern authors have done. Wdford (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not "many". Except for the annoying fact that the Prussians were also part of the alliance - they were also 'allied'. The basic fact is there is no accepted construct other than 'Anglo-' for denoting "Britain or UK connected to something else" - Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Anglo-American. Just like 'Hispano-' also includes the Basques and Catalans etc and in the USA Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Colombians etc., the use of 'Anglo-' includes the Scots and Welsh and sometimes the Irish, or some of the Irish. To go against linguistic usage is not in the purview of Wikipedia editors. Urselius (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)here

Current lingistic usage deprecates this archaic view. Why do you have to have a prefix ending in "-o" for supposed neatness if it is deficient in accuracy? It may have been used in the past more widely in literature n this subject, and worthy of a note to that effect but in contemporary usage, to mean "British" it is sloppy, inadequate, inaccurate and, as mentioned, try getting away with it in the BBC and they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks. If it is or was a widespread technical term, it has a place here but there is no reason to perpetuate it with such regularity in this article, particularly as it doesn't add to clarity as to which army is being referred to anyway. As you say "the Prussians... were also 'allied'", they were just as "Anglo-allied", so use of that term adds nothing to clarity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Wikipedia has to reflect reality, not Utopia or Cloud-cuckoo land. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And what is the plainly flawed proposition that "there is no accepted construct other than 'Anglo-' for denoting "Britain or UK connected to something else" but yours? Er, "British"? I'm not necessarily advocating its use here, just pointing out your supposed linguistic-usage justification is a dud. Also, I do not dictate the BBC's editorial guidelines; Anglo- is notably no longer accepted, certainly far from universally. There may well be an argument to apply this term here if it is both historically and currently the accepted one as a technical term, though others have cast doubt. Yes, historically it has attached itself as a prefix to various terms but do not bring in spurious, unsupported, wider arguments about supposed current usage if you do not wish to be challenged on them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That aspect wouldn't be about a whether anyone was British or not but whether they were English. Arguably and technically the Irish troops were British, as part of that state and apparatus but they were not Anglo-. Neither were the Scots and Welsh, in considerable numbers and in prominence in command. "Allies" is more concise, accurate and less ambiguous and if it is the term large used by current sources, it would seem clearly preferable. It can and ought to be noted that Anglo-allied was formerly the conventional term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I take your point, Mutt. However my own point is not so much about the definition of "Anglo". My concern is about the very concept of "denoting Britain or UK connected to something else" in this particular context. The British component of the Allied army - even allowing for the broadest Imperial definition of the word "British" - was much less than half of the total strength. Why should the Allied army be labelled as "Britain and also a whole lot of other people"? I understand that Imperial jingoists like Siborne would have done so as a matter of course, and seen nothing wrong with it (as probably applies to a number of jingoists today as well). However we now live in the 21st century, where imperialism is gone, the British Empire is reduced now to just Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands, and modern historians are more inclined to take a neutral stance and use neutral words. Surely in the 21st century we should be following neutral modern sources and using a sentence such as "an Allied army drawn from various nationalities, commanded by the British Duke of Wellington"? Wdford (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Irish Duke of Wellington - there's a huge monument in Phoenix Park, Dublin commemorating him - notably not destroyed by the IRA, unlike Nelson's Column, commemorating an Englishman, in the same city. Urselius (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with every point made there but I do agree with the concluding sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Pointless discussion - Wikipedia has to reflect scholarship and the real world, it does not and cannot innovate, create neologisms or lead opinion. Urselius (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I used the term "British Duke" in the broadest Imperial sense. However I take the point – perhaps "Anglo-Irish Duke" would be better?

It is however well known that Wellesley was a member of the Protestant Ascendancy and a product of Eton, he did not consider himself to be Irish, and he frequently said nasty things about Irish people. When he was awarded a peerage he chose a title in England rather than Ireland.

Of the monument in Phoenix Park, we should note that it was put in Phoenix Park because the residents around the originally-proposed site (the place of his birth) objected to its presence, and that it took 40 years to build because the Irish people refused to pay for it. The fact that the IRA hasn't blown it up yet means nothing – the IRA hasn't blown up lots of other things either.

Modern scholarship tends to describe Wellington's army as "Allied", despite the different term used by Imperialist authors such as Siborne. Wikipedia should reflect that modern scholarship, and the real world.

I propose therefore that the sentence should read "an Allied army drawn from various nationalities, commanded by the Anglo-Irish Duke of Wellington".

Wdford (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The majority of modern scholarship in my extensive collection of books on the subject uses "Anglo-allied", I refute your claim to the contrary. The problem of the use of "Allied" in description of Waterloo is that the Prussians were also in the alliance, and were thus also allied. The construction "Ango-allied", clunky as it is, was used by generations of historians, and is still in general use, precisely to overcome this problem. Urselius (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to take a poll of usages, then we need to accept - and disclose - that there is no consensus on this, and we need to record both usages in the article. I suspect that "generations of historians" used the term Anglo-Allied more for nationalistic reasons than for clarity, and many of them strove to claim the victory as a British achievement rather than an alliance achievement.

I am happy to use in the lead, the sentence "an Allied army drawn from various nationalities, commanded by the Anglo-Irish Duke of Wellington and referred to by some authors as the Anglo-Allied army".

Agreed? Wdford (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The full sentence would then read as follows: "A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition: a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal Blücher, and an army consisting of units from the UK, the German Legion, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick and Nassau, commanded by the Anglo-Irish Duke of Wellington and referred to by some authors as the Anglo-allied army." Wdford (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The 'German Legion' reference in that current start line should be properly and accurately corrected to 'the King's German Legion' Joey123xz (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

UK, the German Legion, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick and Nassau inaccurately suggests that the German Legion is a country or a geography, because all the others listed are. The KGL was from the UK and was part of the British army. The proposed Anglo-Irish Duke suggests either that there was an Anglo-Irish ducal title of nobility, which is inaccurate, or that Wellington was Anglo-Irish, which is inaccurate (what sources call him this?), while failing to refer to Napoleon as "Franco-Corsican".89.207.1.20 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Refinement and Clarifications

Over the years I've enjoyed the endless passions of many here in 'Talk' in pursuit of as near as possible perfection of this article. Seems like we may be getting close to the mountain top. Starting off 2020, I think we have much further to chew on this year in discussing refinements involving important minute corrections and trimming unnecessary excesses of detail which seem to overburden certain sections and unbalance others in the process. I'll layout my summary of suggestions which some of you may further expand upon in new separate sections.
-- In the Introduction mention should be made in brackets that the Netherlands Kingdom army was actually composed of both Dutch and Belgian troops - ie, "..... the Netherlands Kingdom army (Dutch and Belgian troops)....... "

Another possible alternative to 'Anglo-Allied' army debate; often one sees "Army of the Low Countries" referring to Wellington's 1815 army in Belgium. Should that be mentioned too - it seems appropriate to add as a contemporary reference of the times.Joey123xz (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

-- The Prelude section should add a line or two mentioning Napoleon chose to strike at Belgium because of its close proximity favourable to a surprise attack - and knowing the massive weight of the rest of the coalition armies could only arrive to the war front weeks away from mid-June. -- Also in the Prelude section there's a significant mistake regarding Ney and Quatre-Bras; Ney's assignment was to capture the Quatre-Bras crossroads and if possible head up to Brussels in Napoleon's wishful thinking; the section implies Ney first hit Perponcher's defending unit at Quatre Bras and that it was then "..... gradually driven back by overwhelming numbers of French troops" - in fact Ney's advance first hit the Dutch Belgians many miles south of Quatre Bras, around the Frasnes area - from their a bold fighting withdrawal was conducted by the Nassau troops facing the largely drawn out French advance. Only a squadron of Guard Lancers had probed as far as the Quatre Bras crossroads but was turned back promptly by the Dutch-Belgian defenders there. The rest of Ney's command was strung out in its advance and prudence convinced Ney not to probe further as dusk settled on June 15th as the Nassau and Dutch-Belgian units at the crossroads and adjacent Bossu woods made a spirited enough show of force. Another significant mistake exists - related to the previous error: Omission of the date of 'June 16th' and the actual reference of the 'Battle of Quatre Bras'. It's implied that Ney probed and fought for Quatre-Bras on June 15th only and that Wellington arrived on the 15th and fought Ney to a standstill and then drove him back by nightfall of the 15th - because the next paragraph starts of with "Meanwhile, on June 16...."

_{Ney's orders were to secure the crossroads of Quatre Bras, so that he could later swing east and reinforce Napoleon if necessary. Ney found the crossroads of Quatre Bras lightly held by the Prince of Orange, who repelled Ney's initial attacks but was gradually driven back by overwhelming numbers of French troops. First reinforcements, and then Wellington arrived. He took command and drove Ney back, securing the crossroads by early evening, too late to send help to the Prussians, who had already been defeated.[citation needed] Meanwhile on 16 June, Napoleon.....}

Another mistake in the Prelude section needs to be corrected as it claims erroneously that ".....the Prussians did not retreat to the east, along their own lines of communication." - In fact though the excellent Prussian generalship did manage to coordinate a retreat of the beaten Prussian army northward to Wavre on the night of the 16th, there was a significant flow of Prussian deserters that headed eastward - along their existing lines of communications. The significance of that point as 'we' know can not be understated enough and should be referenced for the average reader of the article. In the fog of war and literal mists of reduced visibility in the late day torrential rainstorms of June 17th, Grouchy's wing was mesmerized by the fact that his scouts could not immediately determine if the Prussians were illogically moving north or expectedly heading east after their pounding defeat at Ligny. The reasonably-deceptive Prussian mass desertion flight to the east disrupted any hope of Grouchy being the sword into Blucher's back moving northward as Napoleon desired by pinning the Prussians wholly in warding off the French pursuers. This episode potentially changed the whole campaign 'game' at that stage - as did many other intriguing episodes.

--In the Armies section, an injustice has been made regarding the Prussian artillery in referring to their role as "..... did not give its best performance—guns and equipment continued to arrive during and after the battle." Indeed, at Ligny the Prussian gunners surely took a heavy toll on the direct assaults of the French attackers whose losses were significant by the end of the battle. On June 17th their cohesion was near-miraculous - the Prussian batteries remaining largely intact and a significant force in getting to Wavre.

This is just opinion. Which Prussian batteries that fought at Ligny made it to Waterloo in time to contribute? None roughly. The Prussians who arrived at Waterloo were mainly IV Corps which was sent ahead of I and II Corps because they were too beaten up to fight. The latter arrived later. I Corps attacked Wellington's army and it was this Prussian artillery that shot up Mercer's G Troop. II arrived behind IV Corps, whose artillery overs were still landing on the Brussels road when Wellington's advance arrived as far south as Plancenoit, showing the French were still fighting in Plancenoit long after Wellington broke their line.89.207.1.20 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions aside, evidence shows they put their best performance into the battle as possible; Adkin's estimates that the Prussian actual artillery presence and actually participating in the battle was for; IV Corps - 86 guns : I Corps - 24 guns (with another 58 not arriving in time) : II Corps - 24 guns (with another 48 guns not arriving in time) . Barberro puts IV guns in action at Waterloo at 88. General Muffling's memoirs states that IV Corps did not begin its attack into the French Right until the Corp's guns were ready in position to start its bombardment. The Prussian I Corps confusion of the few friendly fire incidents were with blue-coated Nassau defenders and British Dragoons - much like it would be out of order to claim Picton's Highlanders attacked Wellington's army when their friendly fire mistake shot down several of Merlen's Dutch-Belgian cavalry at Quatre-Bras. Blucher had broken the French Right Wing in conjunction with Wellington's General advance breaking the French Left-Center. Joey123xz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

--In the Battlefield section and later in the Hougoumont section, a crucial error is made by not properly and simply describing Hougoumont as a complex of many buildings; chateau, barns, staff houses, large woods to its front, etc,.... instead the consistent impression given is that Hougoumont was one building ( 'a house' 'a country house') and a chapel, with an orchard.

--In the Preparation section there is fuel for an interesting new section that I don't think has been touched yet - the debate about Napoleon's reference to the attack on Mont St.Jean.
_{"At 11:00, Napoleon drafted his general order: Reille's Corps on the left and d'Erlon's Corps to the right were to attack the village of Mont-Saint-Jean and keep abreast of one another. This order assumed Wellington's battle-line was in the village, rather than at the more forward position on the ridge.[46] "}
In fact there is nothing to prove Napoleon did not exactly mean what he said. The debate assumes Napoleon on one hand might have meant capturing La Haye Sainte and the crossdroads. Napoleon knew precisely where La Haye Sainte was in full view and that a true strategic victory would indeed be controlling the village of Mont St Jean- deep in the center of Wellington's position. The mention of Napoleon assuming wrong should be omitted because his order as written makes perfect sense and was never disputed as an error by his staff.

The Hougoumont section could use some refinement: first should be a brief description of the position being more full. The current vagueness implies that the position was just a large country house and does not signify why this position was an imposing defensive bastion. It should be described as a complex of large buildings surrounded by a large woods, garden walls, orchards, and long ditch lines. The reference to " The Coldstream Guards and the Scots Guards arrived to support the defence. " should be properly described as "Further elements of the British Guards Brigade located nearby in the main line arrived to support the defence.... ". Also, references to Adam's brigade seem disjointed; Perhaps simply adding, something akin to "throughtout the day Wellington was obliged to feed in further reinforcements to stabilize the defence of Hougoumont sending in British, Hanoverian and Brunswick troops from infantry brigades in the vicinity". As well the reference to the French shell fire on Hougoumont "resulting in the destruction of all but the chapel...." is factually wrong - the spreading fires did destroy many buildings but not all - the Great Barn remained standing but untenable, and the Gardener's house was still significantly defensible. A few factual mistakes exist in this statement:
^{Hougoumont was a part of the battlefield that Napoleon could see clearly,[57] and he continued to direct resources towards it and its surroundings all afternoon (33 battalions in all, 14,000 troops). Similarly, though the house never contained a large number of troops}
Though Napoleon could see the woods and tops of the building roofs at Hougoumont, he could never see the defenders there - particularly after the big fire and ensuing clouds of smoke erupted at the position. General Reille committed at most two of his three infantry divisions to directly assault Hougoumont (22 battalions, around 10,000 infantry, II Corps batteries). Bachelu's 5th Infantry Division had a very late day role in a somewhat pithy attack nearby but not against Hougoumont.

--The Grand Battery section could be refined further;
_{The grande batterie was too far back to aim accurately, and the only other troops they could see were skirmishers of the regiments of Kempt and Pack, and Perponcher's 2nd Dutch division (the others were employing Wellington's characteristic "reverse slope defence").[61][h] Nevertheless, the bombardment caused a large number of casualties. Although some projectiles buried themselves in the soft soil, most found their marks on the reverse slope of the ridge. The bombardment forced the cavalry of the Union Brigade (in third line) to move to its left, as did the Scots Greys, to reduce their casualty rate.}
The 'grand batterie' should be labeled 'Grand Batterie'. It was not too far back at all ' it was located well within 'effective range' of Wellington's center, and maximum range of most of Wellington's second line. It could not aim accurately as such because of higher terrain of the opposite crestline and Wellington hiding his troops wisely atop or below that crestline. Perhaps simplification is best in referring to 'the only Allied formations skirmishers and batteries being visible while directly across from the battery the bulk of General Picton's two British infantry divisions and General Bylandt's Dutch-Belgian Infantry brigade amidst them sheltered behind the Ohain ridge crestline. The British Heavy Cavalry 'Union' Brigade' was itself compelled to shift its position forward to reduce mounting casualties from the cannon fire being lobbed indirectly over the ridge.'

In the First French infantry attack section, a couple of points. Durette's division did not attack as one mass nor against the Ohain ridge directly; it splintered against the village/ farmhouse complexes in the east defended by Saxe Weimer's brigade- that should be mentioned simply.

In the British Heavy Cavalry charge area: An error - it's claimed the scattered British Heavies were caught by the French cavalry's counter-countercharge to the west of La Haye Sainte when in fact they were demolished to the EAST of La Ha Haye Sainte below the Grand Batterie. I'm also assuming, given how far Jacquinot's cavalry positions were on the French right, that Napoleon only had time to order the cuirassiers to counter-attack; it would be more logical to assume that the French lancers devastating flank attack was independently launched at the same moment. If such orders to Jaquinot exist it should be cited. It also should be clarified that survivors of the Union Brigade made clear references to their decimated post-charge numbers. Though the unit still functioned, their numbers were skeletal at best; as with all other similarly decimated units at Waterloo, many 'lost' in the battle did rejoin their units the next day - post battle lower official losses on units differing from in battle high unit attrition reductions in other words. Contrary to the claim that the Greys put 'very many' French guns out of action, I think a citation should be made referring to this 'claim' at best since the French gunners were even firing into the backs of the retreating Scots Greys- not to mention that the cannonade even worsened into the day. As well - last last line mentioning Prussian Muffling's 3 pm assessment is out of place in this section by about one hour past the event.

The typical frontage occupied by a foot artillery piece was 20 yards so an 80-gun battery would have had a frontage of a mile. The Greys were about 250 to 300 strong in two lines so would have had a frontage of about 150 to 200 yards. Obviously they were not about to put out of action 'very many' of a battery that was far wider than their own lines. The claim should be understood as their sabring 'very many' of those they attacked, which on the basis of their frontage might have been 10 to 15 of them.89.207.1.20 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to your point, it seems the Greys were in 3 separate elements having gone down into the valley in their attack. The first element dashed off out of control to overwhelm an area of the Batterie led by Col.Hamilton. A second element gathered around General Ponsonby and other officers, failed in its desperation to rally the Greys in general, and then in its turn went off eastward to attack a portion of Durette's infantry and his supporting guns. The third element were those rallying and/or ushering hordes of prisoners back into Allied lines. Joey123xz (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

We know, because of eyewitness accounts, that the Scots Greys and the Royals were reorganised from an initial three squadrons before their charge, to two squadrons, slightly less definite evidence suggests that the Iniskillings were similarly reorganised. This is not a handful of men. Cavalry commanders had a good idea of what numbers made a viable squadron. Urselius (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What is generally known on this point is evidence available from surviving Scots Greys cavalrymen involved in the episode.
Sergeant Archibauld Johnston was in Major Poole's troop of the Greys and left a detailed campaign account of his participation in it. In his observations of the immediate aftermath of the charge's rally back in their own lines;
_{"The few who providentially escaped the slaughter endeavoured to make the ground from which we commenced to charge, which when done they could not I think that this was either the body of the brigade or regiment, for all that were left of the Greys were about 60 rank & file. In fact the whole brigade at the time did not exceed 130 rank & file effective men and horses, the remainder were either killed, wounded, or conducting prisoners to Brussels &c."}
Glover, Gareth (2010). The Waterloo Archive. Volume 1: British Sources ; section 15 "Journal by Sergeant Archibauld Johnston" (source from National Museum of Scotland M1997.4).
Then there is the famous passage of the account by Corporal Dickson of the Greys which in its conclusion he noted;
_{".....Major Cheney (who had five horses killed under him) was mustering our men, and with him were Lieutenant Wyndham (afterwards our colonel) and Lieutenant Hamilton, but they were both wounded. There were scarcely half a hundred of the Greys left out of the three hundred who rode off half an hour before."}
Out of around 400+ who started in battle -and minus the numbers of troopers lost during the pre-attack bombardment, the regiment itself lost over 80% of its effective strength during the charge; a mere handful rallied to continue on the rest of the day. Though fighting units in battles can be referred to as battalions, companies, etc, often is the case in a heavy conflict that these formations are actually shadows of what the full compliments of those formations would ordinarily be. At Waterloo many front line units were similarly decimated; ie, Halkett's British brigade's battalions as they were, could only field company sized strengths by day's end. Similarly, the reformation of the Union Brigade regiments after their charge were by evidence skeletal strength squadrons rather than full strength sized units.Joey123xz (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

At 6 O'clock, Quintus Von Goeben of the 3rd Hussars KGL describes the Scots Greys as being 2 squadrons strong, in line with his own regiment. Be very careful in differentiating: 1) The immediate aftermath of the charge, when many troopers may not have found their regiment again 2) after the regiments had been reorganised, and 3) later in the battle when all the British heavies had taken many, many more casualties. Goeben states that the Greys when they were in line with his own regiment "took considerable losses with great cold-bloodedness" from the carbine fire of enemy cavalry skirmishers. To imagine that any commander would make two squadrons of 30 men each, from a total of 60, rather than forming one squadron is quite ludicrous. The only casualty figures taken of any regiment were for the battle as a whole. The sum of all descriptions of the actions of the regiments of British heavies after their charge shows that they initially, following reorganisation, had sufficient numbers for them to make effective charges, these charges were described by eye-witnesses, and also all accounts state that the heavies took continuing very heavy losses. If your baseless claim that the Greys had lost 80% of their strength in their first charge were true, their remnant would have been capable of nothing and equally have been incapable of taking further "considerable losses" as they would have already ceased to have the numbers for 'further losses' be a meaningful concept. Urselius (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me you're trying to argue with. I simply presented long-standing facts regarding the surviving totals of the Scots Greys returning from the charge against D'Erlon. Who you need to convince as being "baseless" are the two Scots Greys who survived the charge and gave corroborating accounts of the immediate aftermath back in their own lines; 50-60 Greys reassembled - out of the 400+ who attacked > close to 80% not returning. If you can cite sources supporting your claim by stating actual numbers ( not types of reconstituted units, ie, squadrons / troops etc ) contending the two Greys' records, then you have a debate to base upon, because the two Greys I quoted make no mention of their Regiment numbers swelling by 200 returning troopers - if that's what your idea of the Greys recovering by two full squadrons implies. I do not contend with the fact that small units of British cavalry were still potently devastating; the Household Brigade made it's crushing charge against D'Erlon's infantry and supporting cavalry with four regiments numbering each just above only 200 troopers! So, effectively, I'm convinced the few hundred cavalry left in the Union and Household Brigades from 3 pm on, were capable of launching effective local counter attacks.Joey123xz (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Capture of La Haye Sainte area I think it should be pointed out that it was General Alten who ordered Colonel Ompteda to make the fateful attempted covering attack towards La Haye Sainte. The Prince of Orange in direct command of both officers, 'merely' and firmly obliged Ompteda to obey Alten.

The Attack of the Imperial Guard section could use a few simplified clarifications. The attack description is not specific in noting that the Middle Guard split into two separate attacks: One branch heading to the center and initially cracking it before being halted by part of Halkett's decimated brigade and then being wrecked by Gen.Detmers Dutch-Belgian infantry brigade's devastating counter-charge just after his attached artillery had blasted into the stunned Guardsmen; the other branch being in two separate forces hitting Maitland's Guards further west and this episode being more highlighted since as the big climactic turning event of the day as Maitland and Adam destroyed these attacks - the way Detmers brigade had done in his sector moments earlier - it should be noted how far Detmer's counter attack went- sweeping all the way down to La Haye Sainte. A witness from the British 52nd Light (Leeke) mentions his unit in its sweep across Mont St.Jean spotted mysterious infantry units to his left; little did he know that these formed masses of blue coated troops were not French battalions as he feared, - logically they were some of units of Chasse's Dutch-Belgian Division which had earlier swept away the first attack of Middle Guards in that sector. Such clarification would unmuddle what seems to be an excess of hodge-podge details.

The Middle Guard did not exist in 1815. The Old Guard regiments were grenadiers and chasseurs. Middle Guard regiments comprised one each of Fusilier-Chasseurs and Fusilier-Grenadiers. They were formed in 1806 and disbanded in 1814. Neither unit was reactivated in 1815. The Guard at Waterloo was Young and Old, no Middle, and was described as such by Davout.89.207.1.20 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree - technically you are right about that. It's a point that's been discussed here in previous sections, and of course elsewhere. Though the 'Middle Guard' infantry did not exist by the 1815 official Army designation, it was and has been since known as that body of French Guard infantry by definition in reference to them during the Waterloo Campaign. As you know it was not similar to the previous Grand Armee years of the official organization of the Middle Guard in size and uniforms.
Napoleon stated - according to the 1949 De Chair autobiography of selected Napoleon's collected memoirs
"…I ordered General Friant to go with these four battalions of the Middle Guard to meet the enemy’s attack. The four battalions repulsed everybody that they encountered….Ten minutes later, the other battalions of the Guard arrived."
Marshal Ney in his written recollections, does make mention of the final Imperial Guard attack at Waterloo;
"A short time afterwards, I saw four regiments of the Middle Guard advancing, led on by the Emperor....."Joey123xz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In the French disintegration section - the 'abandoned carriage' implies Napoleon had just fled from it according to the myth around 'it'. There were in fact two carriages and the capturer, Keller bluffed his way into reward riches implying this carriage was 'the one'. By his own claim, Napoleon pointed out that he fled the battlefield only by horseback. His carriages and drivers had been left to their own ill-fared fates in the rout.

As part of the epilogue, could a section be started on the very significant Waterloo 200 event?
Joey123xz (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've heard it in more than a few history books that the deserters from Ligny were confusing the hell out of the French. Then again it is never mentioned that the General Staff had people that collected the deserters and had them marching back to join their formations shortly thereafter. As for the Prussian artillery, the point was it did survive and was present on the battlefield. As for Peter H's comment on it, It did not show the flexibility that the French did at Ligny. Clausewitz was fairly caustic in his evaluation of the Prussian army's performance on Ligny. Now Karl could get a bit testy about such things. He was known to be both sensitive and petulant at times. None the less the army was not displaying the command and control that he expected of the army. You might read his comments on it and see what you think. Much of the training expected had not been completed and too many of the units were green. Reading through the comments, my evaluation was that of the three armies on the Waterloo battlefield, Prussia fielded the worst on a unit scale. Because of the General Staff, on the operation scale, it proved to be the fastest marching and most flexible. The old infantry regiments were still some of the best on the Waterloo battlefield. But many of the cavalry and artillery formations were not up to their optimal level.

I agree with the comment about the roads. The road network influenced every single action taken by all three armies before, during, and after, the battle. There were exactly three roads that were worth anything in the area, everything else was a road in name only. Described as I have read them, they would at best be called logging roads and at worst cart trails. In 1815 a road was a hideously expensive proposition requiring hellish amounts of maintenance work to keep it up to shape. It wasn't in much better shape over on Elsenborn 104 miles due east in WW2. That aspect of the battle is seriously underplayed. Regards Tirronan (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes- I agree about the roads; the paved ones were few and far between; secondary unpaved roads must have been a literal washout in storms. I'd like to see though and out of curiosity, evidences of how the Prussian artillery did not perform at its best performance as claimed in the article. It's for other forums I suppose, to reference details on how Blucher's units effectiveness was/ may have been eroded by the earlier Spring Saxon mutiny, and many of the best Prussian army units not yet in the theater of operations area..... Happy New Year btw, to you and othersJoey123xz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On the 18th they performed miracles- arriving at Waterloo in daylong movement through atrocious ground sodden / road-wrecked terrain / flooded streams - reminiscent of films/photos of WW1 horse artillery crews struggling in mud. Upon deploying at Waterloo their long range bombing struck the center of Napoleon's positions - the French Imperial Guard itself; surely convincing Napoleon that significant distraction was necessary to divert on the looming Prussian arrival threat on his right flank. Give credit where it's due - the Prussian artillery performed significantly well despite the many obstacles they encountered.

Citation needed tags

Hi! I added references to all Citation needed tags i could find. Not all of my additions are 'strong', though. I'll leave the Citation needed tags in place as i search for more. All the best Wikirictor 10:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of commanders in the infobox

Though Prince William of Orange was the senior United Netherlands commander present at the battle Dutch-Belgian troops were not operating as an independent force, their brigades and divisions had been integrated into the two corps and reserve of the allied army. He was a corps commander and therefore was in an equal position with General Hill. If you have William you then must have Hill in the infobox. It follows that you then have to include the 3 Prussian corps commanders present. On the French side there were 3 infantry corps, 2 and a half cavalry corps and the Imperial Guard probably ranks as a corps as well. The infobox then becomes stuffed with 12 extra commanders. Not a useful or pretty outcome. Ney was the commander of a 'wing' of the French army (along with Grouchy) so was senior to corps commanders. Urselius (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect use of 'Dutch'

Many instances in the text describe formations that included Belgian regiments as "Dutch". This is inaccurate and incorrect. In the army of the United Netherlands regiments were officially classed as Dutch or Belgian. All Divisions and some Brigades were a mixture of Dutch and Belgian regiments and should be described as 'Dutch-Belgian' consistently. Urselius (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is a very important point, because we're at a time when this kind of misinformation should be general knowledge by know and not continue the old myths and misrepresenting labels of 'Anglo-Dutch army' - and thus insinuating the Belgians and Germans did not exist in Wellington's Waterloo army. --Joey123xz (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Which paces?

The article often gives distances in paces. Since both 1-step and 2-step paces are in common usage, which paces? 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the description of paces is out of place. For simplicity sake and so as not to confuse the general reader, the simple use of 'yards' should replace 'paces'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of the article is a jumbled mess, and should be rewritten to clearly explain the article's main points without bogging it down in unnecessary detail. Compare the current first paragraph:

The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18 June 1815, near Waterloo in Belgium, part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time. A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition, a British-led coalition consisting of units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick, and Nassau, under the command of the Duke of Wellington, referred to by many authors as the Anglo-allied army or Wellington's army, and a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal von Blücher, referred to also as Blücher's army. The battle marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

with the version from 2007 when the article became a GA.

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on 18 June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. His defeat put a final end to his rule as Emperor of the French. Waterloo also marked the end of the period known as the Hundred Days, which began in March 1815 after Napoleon's return from Elba, where he had been exiled after his defeats at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and the campaigns of 1814 in France.

The latter is much more succinct and to-the-point. --2001:FB1:39:B7F7:1075:BDD9:1B56:BE05 (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You are probably unaware of the history of disputes between editors over such things as the term 'Anglo-allied', which have influenced the present wording. It is unfortunate that the tenacious 'wrong-headedness' of some editors results in the appearance of defensive wording, over-precise definition and prolixity in this and other articles. Urselius (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, Waterloo did not 'ebd' the 'One Hundred Days'. That end came when the former French King returned to power in France 100 days after Napoleon arrived back in Paris on March 20th, 1815. I think that can be tweaked shorter by leaving off, " after his defeats at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and the campaigns of 1814 in France." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Planned Additions to the Article

Hello all. I plan to add information in the “Aftermath” section within the article regarding Napoleon between the Battle of Waterloo and his announcement of his second abdication. Specifically, I will be adding information on Napoleon fleeing back to Paris and attempting to raise an army to fight back Anglo-Prussian forces, how this attempt failed, information on the Chamber of Deputies becoming permanent to stop its dissolution from Napoleon, and Napoleon’s original plan to abdicate to his son, Napoleon II. I will be using Jeremy Black’s book The Battle of Waterloo as my reference for this added information. Jeremy Black is a historian and was a professor at the University of Exeter. Altogether, I plan to add about 200-300 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Hjacobs2021 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cambronne

There seems to be a plethora of versions of what he is supposed to have said, the one used here, "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!", but also, La garde meurt mais ne se rend pas !" and, what seems most favoured in French sources, "La Garde meurt et ne se rend pas!". Should such variations be flagged in some way? I have just reverted an edit which changed the version used here, mostly because the link was disrupted. Urselius (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hjacobs2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and corps commanders

A long time ago the consensus of editors working on this article decided that it was detrimental to include any commanders of corps-level units, because of the large numbers present at the battle: 2 Anglo-allied, 3 if Uxbridge is counted, 3 Prussian and no less than 5 French, plus the acting commander of the Imperial Guard, itself a corps-sized unit. This makes 12 names to be added to the infobox, which is already quite long and unwieldy. I don't think that anything has changed to make stuffing the infobox with names any more attractive. Urselius (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reaction, but maybe it is good to see once more what people think. It doesn't seem like adding important commanders to the infobox takes anything away from the article and it is a common practice on Wikipedia to not just include the supreme commanders, like in the examples I gave. And since most people don't read the whole article it seems better to represent more commanders of the article in the infobox than just 4. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It is generally considered bad form to add an edit again after it has been challenged, and debate is active on the talk page. You need to come up with a convincing argument for overturning a previous consensus, or seek a new consensus. If you add one corps commander, logic would suggest that all must be added, otherwise it would be personal cherry-picking on your part. Is Zieten more notable than Bülow? Bülow had more men of his corps present at the battle. Cherry-picking is fraught with the danger of being unencyclopedic. Infoboxes are a debatable feature of Wikipedia to my mind, empty fields tempt people to fill them, whether the additional information is useful or not. Plus they can easily become over-large and impinge on the text. Consider that there is a complete article (linked) on the order of battle, that anyone wanting an overview of the commanders at all levels can consult. Urselius (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I note that you do not wish to abide by Wikipedia protocols. I have just noticed that you included a lone divisional commander, this is unacceptable. I begin to have strong suspicions of your motives. Take the matter to formal arbitration. Urselius (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia in comparison to you so excuse me if I have taken actions that might be considered bad form, but I thought that you might not have seen my response when you deleted my edit. Anyway, as you say, the consensus was esteblished quite a while ago so it can't be bad to revisit the discussion. Also, this article doesn't exist on an island and it is common practice on wikipedia to include more than just the supreme commanders. Certainly in the case of large and famous Napoleonic battles. Battle of Borodino, Battle of Austerlitz, Battle of Leipzig and the battle of Battle of Vitoria. Including Non-British and Prussian commanders might also gives some more regognition other factions present. But picking which commanders would fit into the infobox is indeed always subjective. Together we could maybe establish a better list. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that national sentiment is a very useful reason for including people in infoboxes. Including people of all ranks who were prominent in the battle is also ripe with problems as people like Lieutenant-Colonel James MacDonell who led the closing of the gate at Hougoumont - THE critical event of the battle according to Wellington - would have to be included. The difficulties are, where do you stop, and who decides on which were the most prominent or decisive people? Any addition of persons to the infobox has to have a logical basis; for me that would including all corps commanders or none, or all divisional commanders or none. At the moment the situation has the advantage of being simple, only those persons with commands greater than a corps are in the box. I have seen many attempts to place William of Orange in the infobox, but he was not the commander of the Dutch-Belgian army in the Waterloo campaign, Wellington was. William was merely the most senior native Netherlands' officer present, and a corps commander. If you want to put all the Prussian, Anglo-allied and French corps commanders that were present in the infobox in order to get William in, then I will not stop you (as long as it includes Kellerman, Milhoud and Drouot), but you might get pushback from elsewhere. I think it will look crowded and poor, however. Urselius (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Colonel Crabbé,

From the article, "Napoleon left Ney to conduct the assault; however, Ney led the Middle Guard on an oblique towards the Anglo-allied centre right instead of attacking straight up the centre. Napoleon sent Ney's senior ADC Colonel Crabbé to order Ney to adjust, but Crabbé was unable to get there in time.". This has no supporting citation, and Barbero (p. 194) states that Colonel Crabbé was mortally wounded at the time of the British heavy cavalry charge. I propose that the section be deleted unless some evidence of two Colonel Crabbés being present at the battle is evident. Urselius (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL at the "Middle Guard" - this canard again. The Middle Guard had consisted of Fusilier-Grenadiers and Fusilier-Chasseurs. There were neither at Waterloo. It was disbanded in 1814, not reactivated in 1815, and ceased to exist.

This one is trotted out I think because Anglophobic myth-makers, starting in 1815, have resented the defeat of the Old Guard by Wellington, and insist that he cannot possibly have defeated the Emperor's finest. They usually cite Ney's reference to the Middle Guard as evidence there was one, but it was Davout who mobilised the army and he referred only to Young and Old Guard. As he also organised their pay, and the payscales were different between Old, Middle and Young, it's a safer bet that Davout was right on this than that Ney was. Ney had been with the army three days by 18th June, so he was probably simply mistaken.

It's a good example of why there is really no point contributing to Wikipedia in any way: there is always a 12-year-old troll with infinite time and an agenda, ready to deface articles. 10 years ago this was a decent article, but now it is unreadably poor.

What patently damns this effort is that even today it still relies heavily on cites to Hamilton-Williams, a.k.a. Dave Cromwell of East Grinstead, a convicted fraudster (https://www.thenapoleonicwars.net/forum/general-discussions/hamilton-williams-bowden-issues-over-footnotes-and-bibliographies), whose "work" was debunked 30 years ago, and Peter Hofschroer, a convicted paedophile (https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14612062.historian-who-had-36000-indecent-photos-videos-gets-two-and-a-half-years/) who has been crazy for decades, has been sectioned for life in Austria and whose own work is as bad as Dave Cromwell's. That out of the entire canon of Napoleonic historiography this article relies on two dishonest mendacious creeps, because their versions suit the 12-year-olds' agenda, is simply laughable, and completely discredits the entire piece. Tirailleur (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The 'Middle Guard was a de facto, rather than de jure formation in the Waterloo campaign.

Yes, you are quite right about 'Hamilton-Williams' and Hofschroer, as well as being a fraudster and insane, respectively, both have been shown to have distorted and indeed fabricated primary sources. To be fair, however, the article has many citations to other authors. Urselius (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

William of Orange in commanders/leaders box

William of Orange commanded the Allied I Corps. If his name is present, shouldn't the other corps commanders also be included? 109.158.87.3 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite true, I have removed him. He was not even the senior Netherlands general present, Wellington was, he had been created a field marshal in the Dutch army about a month before the battle. If one corps commander is included, then all must be, more than a dozen, and it would look ridiculous. Thanks for pointing this out. Urselius (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Urselius That is quite the exaggeration. Infoboxes of other battles look just fine with more than 2 commanders on each side. Another solution could be to place a Dutch flag next to Wellington's British flag, since he also fought in the service of the Netherlands. The flag doesn't represent nationality after all DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I still think that an infobox is for a shorthand version of a topic, not to go into details, that is what the text is for. An infobox with Napoleon, Ney, Wellington, Bluecher, Zeiten, Buelow, Pirch, Orange, Hill, Reille, D'Erlon, Lobau, Milhaud, Kellerman and Druot would look ridiculous, take up too much space and not render a useful service to the reader. Wellington was also a senior general in the Portuguese and Spanish armies at the time, which makes things a little complex. Urselius (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think that the infoboxes of the Battle of Borodino, Battle of Austerlitz, Battle of Leipzig and the battle of Battle of Vitoria look ridiculous at all. Including more than just 2 commanders isn't the same as going into a lot of detail. And yes, it is true that Wellington also was a senior general in the Portuguese and Spanish armies, but those armies didn't take part in this battle. Including a Dutch flag next to the British one shouldn't be much of a problem. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what this really is about is that Urselius has for many years now been busy minimizing the Dutch role in the battle in this article. So no place for "Silly Billy" and intentionally "forgetting" about the 1st Netherlands division Under Stedtman, that is mentioned in the Order of Battle, but again seems not be included in the tally in the info box. Granted, Wellington did not call up this part of the Reserve, but so were some non-Dutch units. Is Urselius channeling the ghost of Siborne (I refer also to his gratuitous attacks on Hamilton-Williams in these pages)? Ereunetes (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What you have said here is not only wrong it is bordering on being libellous. In the battle William of Orange was a Corps commander, he did not have more general authority. He was not even the second-in-command to Wellington, Uxbridge was. A consensus was reached that only the commanders exercising overall tactical control of the armies involved in the battle should be in the infobox, for clarity's sake. This was because a separate order of battle article exists, and anyone wanting to look up who was commanding any formation could easily consult this. So no anti-Dutch animus exists, except in your fevered imagination. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Libeling Siborne? One cannot libel the dead, I am told. As to the info box, I see that an acceptable compromise has been reached by adding the flag of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands above Wellington in the commanders section. So no need for all this hyperventilating. Ereunetes (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Libelling me, of course. Duh! Urselius (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When you refer to Hamilton-Williams, are you referring to Dave Cromwell of East Grinstead, the liar convicted of obtaining money by deception who invented his sources, including making up an entire non-existent archive and citing himself, and who gave Paeder "sectioned for life" Hofschroer all his best ideas? And Hofschroer would know all about what a source-abuser would do. It wasn't just kids he fiddled with! Tirailleur (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When I am talking of gratuitous attacks, yours is a good example. Hamilton-Wiliams was the Anglophone historian who "unearthed" the contemporary criticisms of Siborne and his fraudulent "historiography" by Willem Jan Knoop and Alexis-Michel Eenens, and added his own research in Dutch and Belgian archives to that material. I don't care what he may or may not have done in private life. Dragging that up is a prime example of ad hominem rhetoric, only intended to deflect attention from the damage Siborne did. As an example, I remember it took an enormous effort to get Siborne's fairy tales about the placement of the Bylandt brigade during the initial French bombardment removed from this article. By now there is a whole industry debunking Siborne's lies about "Belgian-Dutch cowardice". But you insist on perpetuating these lies. Why? Simple Jingoism? Ereunetes (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When a historian is proven to have fabricated primary sources, nothing that he has written can be trusted. Just as a witness who has been found to have lied on oath in court casts a doubt of veracity on everything they have said. Why would Siborne have an anti-Dutch agenda? Was he frightened by a windmill at an impressionable age? The publication by his son of much of the correspondence he received from British and King's German Legion officers, who were present at Waterloo, revealed the origins of all of Siborne's unflattering references, they were gleaned from eyewitnesses. Siborne was essentially merely relating the opinions of these officers. Rather than thinking that Siborne was personally responsible, which is entirely untrue, you need to ask yourself why a substantial proportion of the British and KGL officers present at Waterloo had such negative views of the performance of some of the Dutch-Belgian troops during the battle. Is it likely that they all had pre-formed prejudices against Netherlanders, or is it likely that they saw actions by Dutch-Belgian troops that they disapproved of? While there is a huge pressure on the Netherlands officers present to deny shortcomings in the performance of their units, there is no similar level of pressure on the British and KGL eyewitnesses to artificially distort their opinion or memories. It is a matter of logic and probability. Urselius (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) It isn't as though contemporary British officers routinely or automatically denigrated allied foreign troops they fought alongside, the Portuguese light infantry received many plaudits, Wellington called them, "The fighting cocks of the army".

I am surprised by you take on Siborne.

It isn't unlikely at all that the British had pre-formed prejudices. In fact, Wellington himself wrongly distrusted the loyalty of many Dutch-Belgian troops and officers because of pre-formed prejudices, since many had fought with the French. And in any case, relying on just British accounts doesn't strike me as a way to get an accurate overview of Dutch-Belgian performance. Which is the reason why there are so many who had and have problems with is work. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is certain that if the British officers had been favourably impressed by the performance of the Dutch-Belgian units they saw in action that any prejudice would have been dispelled. The Hanoverian infantry received approbation, over all, from the British. However, the Hanoverian cavalry ran away and this was commented on. So British officers lie when commenting on Dutch-Belgian shortcomings, but are accurate when expressing the same about Hanoverians? Siborne has been vilified as though he had deliberately adopted an anti-Dutch stance, but this is completely untrue, he was merely relating things that he had been told by eyewitnesses. You say that he should have sought input from Dutch-Belgian eyewitnesses, but he was not writing in Dutch for a Dutch audience, so it would not have naturally occurred to him to do so. The standards of modern international scholarship in regard to pandering to hurt national sentiment are scarcely applicable to a mid 19th century author. It is hardly believable that Uxbridge was lying when he said that he ordered the Dutch-Belgian heavy cavalry brigade to follow him in a charge, and they did not move. This is especially unlikely, as the independent statement of the British officer who rode up to Uxbridge to tell him that he was not being followed, exists. There seems to be no incentive for both of these people, one Wellington's second-in-command, to fabricate this incident. However, there is plenty of incentive for the Dutch heavy cavalry officers involved to deny its veracity. Urselius (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

About the alleged incident between Uxbridge and Trip: Let's assume it was actually what happened. But what if Trip simply didn't understand English? After all, most Continentals had only French as a second language. English was only spoken by a small minority. So I picture a scene in which Uxbridge gets more and more enervated, and does what Englishmen always do when their inferiors don't understand them: they raise their voice. And when this doesn't work they leave in frustration, which is what happened here also, if one believes the story. I think the reaction of Trip was quite natural in the presumed circumstances. Ereunetes (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't vilify him and I didn't write that he should have done anything. I just can't believe that you don't see a problem with relying on such a biased source. It doesn't matter towards which audience he was writing and what would and would not naturally occure to him. What matters is if his work is reliable when talking about Dutch-Belgian performance and that is clearly not the case. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is what Jos Gabriëls (2016) writes about the incident:

However, this incident has nothing to do with cowardice. To begin with, Trip and his officers did not know who the busily gesticulating person in British colonel's uniform was. Indeed, they were unaware that the Prince of Orange had also entrusted Uxbridge with the command of the Dutch cavalry at the beginning of the battle. Moreover, they could not understand the English-speaking nobleman. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless this is supported by eyewitness testimony, this is just guess work by a historian. It is directly refuted by Uxbridge, who states in one of his letters to Siborne that he got the Dutch heavy cavalry to follow him, so he must have been understood, otherwise they would not have followed him. He says (see the full quote in my post below) that they followed him until they got to the crest of the ridge, there they stopped and he could not get them to charge. This sounds a lot like the brigade were compliant to Uxbridge's orders, until they could see what was awaiting them at the far side of the ridge and then they stopped dead and could not be budged - cowardice if you like. Urselius (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Linguistic incompetence of the British", as Veronica Baker-Smith puts it, led to immobility or misunderstood manoeuvres by non-British units at Waterloo, fuelling accusations of cowardice (like possibly now in your case).

AS I suspected, just the imaginings of a historian. The contemporary British gentleman was expected to be proficient in a number of 'social graces' which included dancing, smallsword fencing, card games and the French language. There were many French emigres in Britain teaching French. There are no anecdotes that I am aware of, of captured French officers being unable to make themselves understood to their British captors (of officer rank). Besides, in his youth Uxbridge spent many months in Lausanne and toured France twice, he spoke French and studied Italian. He also spent a year in Vienna, where he would have spoken French, as it was the lingua Franca of the upper classes, as it also was in Russia. So Uxbridge, Trip and his officers would have had a common language, where, "En avant de la marche, chargez!" would have been understood by all. Urselius (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Who are you to just dismiss the opinions of historians in this way? And spending months in France and a year in Vienna doesn't make it certain that he spoke French in an articulate manner. You are just guessing, the thing you are accusing qualified historians of. "En avant de la marche, chargez!" also wouldn't be enough if it wasn't clear to Trip that Uxbridge was in command of the Dutch cavalry.

If nobody else than you objects I might add to the article that Trip possibly did not know that Uxbrigde was in the position to give him commands. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet another strawman diversion. As obvious and transparent as it is useless and sad. Although we should perhaps ask why Uxbridge thought it necessary to use "gestures the most animated and significant"? Why did he feel the need to pantomime his orders? Wdford (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Use indents in talk page discussions, as is required. Uxbridge's knowledge of the French language seems entirely pertinent to me. I use reasoned argument supported by facts, you repeatedly use ad hominem language and your unsupported opinion. I think that anyone being frustrated by the lack of movement of people you were ordering to move would use gestures, it is human nature to do so. Wellington used a gesture, waving with his hat to set the entire Anglo-allied army in forward motion after the failure of the attack of the Imperial Guard infantry. Urselius (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop already with the strawmen. Trip declined to conduct a suicidal charge because he knew it would be a waste of lives, and he had realised that Uxbridge was incompetent. We also notice that Uxbridge "forgot" to record what Trip actually said to him when he presented this moronic plan, or if Trip also used "gestures the most animated and significant". Wdford (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

When Wellington ordered the final charge, he was communicating over long distances with the entire remaining British Army, not just with one man standing right in front of him. And Siborne nowhere says that Wellington used "gestures the most animated and significant". Wdford (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

When there are other likely explainations put forward by historians we should clearly not blindly trust the testimony of Uxbridge. Certainly because there is plenty of criticism to be made about his actions during the battle, and a scapegoat would be convenient. Trip also never before showed any instances of cowardice as far as I know. You were quick to doubt my motives in another discussion, but you yourself seem a bit to willing to blindly believe your fellow countrymen. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that being involved in a major battle would tend to sear events like the insubordination of a whole brigade onto one's memory. Besides, Uxbridge's recollection of the incident is directly supported by the written testimony of his ADC. It is noteworthy that Uxbridge directly connects his great disapproval of the behaviour of Hake, commander of the Cumberland Hussars, who fled the field - fleeing all the way to Brussels - and who was subsequently cashiered, with the behaviour of Trip. No one has ever come up with any convincing motivation for Uxbridge or his ADC inventing the incident. Though there is obvious incentive for the Dutch heavy cavalry officers denial or obfuscation. Urselius (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody believes that the entire incident was invented. That strawman diversion is itself an example of obfuscation. The reality is that Trip was a competent and experienced senior officer, he had already suffered heavy casualties in rescuing Uxbridge from his ill-disciplined and poorly planned Grand Charge, he saw the Household cavalry get stuffed in their glorious Uxbridge-charge, and he made a command decision to not lead his men to the same useless and wasteful fate. Uxbridge then sent in the KGL Hussars, who met the same fate as the Household cavalry, so Trip was proven correct. This is the reality which jingoistic British editors are trying frantically to avoid facing. Uxbridge was incompetent, he deserved to be disciplined himself, and he was probably only saved from that fate by being heroically wounded in the closing stages. Some have speculated that Uxbridge kept leading suicidal useless charge after suicidal useless charge throughout the day, specifically to redeem himself from his gross incompetence relating to the Grand Charge. Unlike Hake, Trip was not in the British Army, and he was free to ignore stupid orders. If you want to froth about the insubordination of entire brigades, then consider why the British cavalry ignored the order from the same Uxbridge to stop charging, and why none of them were court-martialed for that insubordination? Wdford (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Use indents! There was only one regiment of KGL hussars present, in Vivian's brigade on the far left, Do you mean the 2 regiments of KGL light dragoons in Dornberg's brigade, alongside the 23rd Light Dragoons? To quote Major Lautour of the 23rd LD, "... the 23rd Light Dragoons (the Marquess of Anglesey [Uxbridge] at their head) advanced again and drove back the Enemy's Cavalry from their immediate front ... I found it necessary to move the Regiment to the right to give an opportunity to the Belgian Heavy Regiment of Dragoons in our rear to deploy (which I had reason to believe afterwards they did not do), ..." Urselius (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

On my screen, your edits are a now long narrow column two words wide. Not user-friendly. Siborne (page 464) says that it was the 3rd Hussars of the King's German Legion, which "received from Lord Uxbridge in person, the order to charge a line of French cavalry..." Seems clear enough. Siborne records that during this Uxbridge-charge, "a vast proportion of them was cut off. The remainder, dispersed, and pursued by the French Cavalry, rode back to the Infantry Squares." Good work Uxbridge!!!

I have a facsimile of the original 1848 edition and of Siborne and p. 464 does not mention the KGL. I mixed up the 3rd and 2nd Hussers KGL, the latter were not present, but the former, due to the movement of the 13th LD, were the sole regiment in Arentschildt's brigade and reached the battlefield late. Urselius (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Read Siborne pages 463 and 464 together. Siborne is totally clear that it was the "3rd Hussars of the King's German Legion". [1] Wdford (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, denigrating the allies of the British was quite common among British officers and 19th century historians, not only in the context of Waterloo. I remember when I researched the story of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland many years ago that I was struck by the negative opinions expressed by British sources about the conduct of the Russians in that campaign. The invective was at least as bad as the invective directed at the Dutch and Belgians in the context of the Waterloo campaign. Ereunetes (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You are quite right. On the other hand in the 1793-94 campaign in the Low Countries British officers were very complimentary about the allied Austrian troops. While at least one Austrian officer was very denigrating about British cavalry swordsmanship. Urselius (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

When the British heavy cavalry was badly mauled in the course of their ill-conceived, badly managed and near-suicidal Grand Charge, the survivors were rescued by the Dutch-Belgian cavalry. Wellington himself was critical of the way in which the British cavalry commander was conducting his affairs. Subsequently the Dutch-Belgian cavalry incurred the ire of that same incompetent British cavalry commander by refusing to undertake suicide charges of their own, or to be used by him as cannon fodder. It would seem that the British cavalry commander had plenty of incentive to slander the Dutch-Belgian cavalry who rescued him from his own stupidity, and thereafter refused to obey his commands to commit suicide themselves. Wdford (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Presumably all of your claims about "Hamilton Williams" are sourced from Dave Cromwell himself? He's a fraud, a fabricator and a liar. Nothing he says on any subject is of any value whatsoever. He invented an entire archive, he invented his name, he invented his supposed academic qualifications and he was trying to invent a connection to the Earl of Uxbridge at one point. Peter Hofschroer, meanwhile, who borrowed Cromwell's claims as the basis of his own farrago, is a convicted paedophile who is now locked up for life. His defence at his trial for downloading 7,000 child pornography images was that everyone but himself was a paedophile, and it was all a stitchup by the police and Jimmy Savile. This was dismissed by the judge as "outrageous".

It is an utter, utter disgrace and farce that a supposedly "encyclopaedic" article relies on literally the worst imaginable sources: two proven utter frauds and jailbirds. You might as well rely on Prince Andrew as a source for the article on Virginia Giuffre. It discredits Wikipedia that you cannot be bothered to dig into or understand any of this, that you assume they are right and that you think including their lies and fabrications into an article is fine because the utter rubbish they spout aligns with your own prejudices, and that anyone who points this out to you must be somehow suspect. Are you sure you're not Dave Cromwell? You sound like you might be. Tirailleur (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You are frothing at the mouth. I am worried about you. Ereunetes (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No. In their first charge, 2 brigades of cavalry defeated an entire corps and sent most of them running, capturing two imperial eagles in the process. Despite the collapse of the French army at the end of the battle, they were the only eagles captured by either the Anglo-allied or Prussian armies in the entire battle, or in the pursuit. By any measure, the charge was a stunning success in totally repulsing Napoleon's first grand assault. The two brigades of British cavalry numbered somewhat over 2,000 men, they killed and captured at least twice their own numbers. Even had they all perished, which they did not, the mathematics of their charge would still have been in their favour. Following the battle, lines of French muskets were found on the ground where many of D'Erlon's men had abandoned them, so as to more easily run from the British cavalrymen. Therefore, a proportion of the French survivors had disarmed themselves and could play little part in later actions. Uxbridge had, previous to the battle, instructed all the cavalry commanders to 'Support any movement to their front'. So, while Uxbridge later admitted that he should have been actively organising reserves, he had instructed brigade commanders to organise support for any charge to their front on their own initiative. Of course the brigades most prominent in moving forward in support of the British heavies were Vandeleur's British light cavalry brigade and Ghigny's Dutch-Belgian light cavalry brigade (who fought very gallantly and sustained heavy casualties). The Dutch-Belgian heavies, were less prominent and their participation is not always noted by historians. Uxbridge had little need to be grateful to them. Certainly, by most standards of military conduct Trip should have been cashiered for not following the direct order of a superior officer in action, just as the commander of the Hanoverian Cumberland Hussars was following the battle. Urselius (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me quote Wellington in his Dispatch to Bathurst on 19 June 1815 at you: "General Kruse of the Nassau service, likewise conducted himself much to my satisfaction; as did general Tripp, commanding the heavy brigade of cavalry, and general Vanhope (sic), commanding a brigade of infantry in the service of the King of the Netherlands." (Wellington, Arthur Wellesley duke of (1838). The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. Vol. 12. p. 484. Retrieved 10 May 2023.). No talk of cashiering Trip here, fresh after the battle. And Wellington was an eyewitness of impeccable character, don't you think? I think you and Tirailleur make yourself a bit ridiculous in your efforts to refight the battle against the Dutch, not on the battlefield so much, as in the jingoist British press. One wonders why this is so important to you after more than two centuries? Wellington certainly was no fan of refighting old battles. Ereunetes (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I know the quotation, no doubt Wellington had not made enquiries of Uxbridge before he wrote the report, largely because Uxbridge had just lost a leg. Wellington, as well as criticising, also mentioned favourably General Slade in dispatches, and Slade was a byword for incompetence within the British cavalry. Wellington sometimes got it wrong, as he did with his reprimand of the 13th Light Dragoons at Campo Mayor. The 13th had broken and chased from the field 6 squadrons of French cavalry, having only two and a half squadrons themselves, but Wellington threatened to take their horses from them and put them on guard duties in Lisbon because their pursuit 'got out of hand'. He later regretted his reprimand, after he was fully appraised of the circumstances. Wellington was not omniscient, what you need to consider carefully is why both Lord Uxbridge and his ADC Capt. Seymour would manufacture, and later commit to writing a lie about Trip either disobeying a direct order in action, or his command refusing to obey Trip's passing on of this order (these are the only two possible interpretations), if this did not happen. I quote Uxbridge (letter 6 from Siborne jr. Waterloo Letters), "I brought forward a Brigade of Dutch Heavy Cavalry, and they promised to follow me, I led them beyond the ridge of the hill, a little to the left of Hougoumont. There they halted, and finding the impossibility of making them charge, I left them and retired." - "I have the strongest reason to be excessively dissatisfied with the General commanding a Brigade of Dutch Heavy Cavalry, and with a Colonel commanding a young Regiment of Hanoverian Hussars." Quoting Capt. Seymour ADC to Uxbridge (letter 9), "In reply to your question, as to the conduct of the Dutch Brigade of Heavy Cavalry, the impression still on my mind is that they did show a lamentable want of spirit, and that Lord Anglesey [Uxbridge] tried all in his power to lead them on, and while he was advancing, I believe I called his attention to the fact of his not being followed."

As to your final point, yes, the contributions of the Dutch-Belgian and Prussian troops to the Waterloo campaign have been historically underreported by historians writing in English. However, the revisionism has been badly overplayed, so that now there is an essentially hysterical defence of every aspect of all Dutch and Prussian units and their actions during the campaign and battle. This has not been helped by the proven fabrications and unscrupulous, unsupported exaggerations of the two leaders of this revisionist movement, so-called Hamilton-Williams and Hofschroer. Both of these men have been convicted in courts of law, H-W for fraud, H for child pornography and threatening a judge, plus H has been indefinitely detained in an Austrian secure mental facility. No reliance can be placed on the writings of fraudsters, or people suffering from mental illnesses. Urselius (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)