Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Waterloo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,999,604 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 5 WikiProject template(s). Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep the rating of {{VA}} "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep only the dissimilar ones from {{WikiProject France}}, {{WikiProject Belgium}}, {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Netherlands}}.
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=100|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Article history
|action1=WPR
Line 34:
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|British-task-force=yes|Dutch-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes|German-task-force=yes|Napoleonic-task-force=yes|old-peer-review=yes}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Belgium|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high|Prussia=Yes|Prussia-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Netherlands}}
}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 59 ⟶ 58:
{{PageViews graph|90}}
 
== 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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tirailleur|Tirailleur]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/109.158.87.3|109.158.87.3]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk:Urselius|talk]]) 11:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Urselius|@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 [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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)? [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk:Ereunetes|talk]]) 22:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Libelling me, of course. Duh! [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Tirailleur|Tirailleur]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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.'' [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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), ..." [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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". [https://archive.org/details/waterloocampaig01sibogoog/page/462/mode/2up?view=theater&q=legion] [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tirailleur|Tirailleur]] ([[User talk:Tirailleur|talk]]) 16:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::You are frothing at the mouth. I am worried about you. [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk: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." ({{cite book|page=484|author=Wellington, Arthur Wellesley duke of|title=The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington|volume=12|year=1838|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Dispatches_of_Field_Marshal_the_Duke/TrLSAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0|access-date=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. [[User:Ereunetes|Ereunetes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk:Urselius|talk]]) 10:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
== William of Orange in commanders/leaders box 2==
 
Line 238 ⟶ 173:
:::::::But anyway, as a solution we could state the differences between the KGL and the Nassau regiments in a footnote or in the article itself if you want. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk:DavidDijkgraaf|talk]]) 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You would have to show that either a consensus, or at least majority, of relevant scholars supported your argument. Anything less is insufficient to make it unequivocally correct in an encyclopaedic treatment. Wikipedia must follow scholarly usage, it cannot under any circumstances lead. It cannot be used to create precedents. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk:Urselius|talk]]) 09:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 
== What happened to "Waterloo_in_popular_culture" wiki article ==
 
It looks like the article was deleted, and the reference to Abba was added to this article. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 
:Yes, indeed
:Record of its deletion
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo in popular culture]]
:Scrape prior to deletion.
:[https://web.archive.org/web/20220324193927/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_in_popular_culture]
:Nothing further to see, move along. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 
== Peninsular War veterans and Waterloo ==
Line 298 ⟶ 244:
::::::::Source: BRITISH ARMY ESTABLISHMENTS DURING THE NAPOLEONIC WARS (PART 1)
::::::::Roderick MacArthur, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, (Volume 87 Number 350 in Summer 2009) [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 15:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{outdent|11}}
[[User:Consigned|Consigned]], I hope this is of interest, regarding the incorrect assertion by Chandler that in June 1815 the British Army of the Peninsular War was being shipped to fight a war in North America that was ended on 24 December 1814. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 21:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 
:Thanks Keith H99. I agree it seems like Chandler is mistaken or incorrect, but is it challenged directly in another source? I wonder how to present this in the article without using [[WP:OR|original research]] or [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]]. [[User:Consigned|Consigned]] ([[User talk:Consigned|talk]]) 23:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
== What happened to "Waterloo_in_popular_culture" wiki article ==
::This is the text as it currently stands:
:::Chandler incorrectly{{Citation needed|date=May 2024|reason=Reference needed stating that Chandler is incorrect}} asserts that most of the British veterans of the [[Peninsular War]] were being transported to North America to fight in the [[War of 1812]].{{sfn|Chandler|1966|p=1093}}
::@[[User:Consigned|Consigned]] would you be able to edit the sentence, in a manner that addresses your synthesis concern, and will result in the CN tag being removed, please? [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 08:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|11}}
[[User:Wdford|Wdford]], subsequent research since 1966 calls into question Chandler's comment as a reliable source. That said, I think Barbero should be cited. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::Cool. I am happy to cite them both. [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk:Wdford|talk]]) 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I was likewise puzzled by Chandler's comment about British militia
::::'only the British contingent was entirely composed of regular soldiers, because in Great Britain constitutional guarantees blocked the use of the militia outside the kingdom.'
:::Barbero, pg21
:::Currently unable to find where the Peninsular War veterans (only 4 regiments were not there) quote is from; it is not Barbero. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 
:::: In general, I am happy to accept Chandler as a reliable source, so I would not lightly discount him, unless he is contradicted by another reliable source. However if there is a contradicting source, then fair enough – please add it all in.
It looks like the article was deleted, and the reference to Abba was added to this article. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 
::::I have seen mentions elsewhere that the British Army was not as solid as Wellington would have liked – there must be some foundation to this? Just how inexperienced were they?
:Yes, indeed
 
:Record of its deletion
::::In cases where an army is being deliberately demobilised after a war, it seems to be the tendency that men who want to go home are released, and those who want to stay are then grouped into a smaller number of battalions. It would be silly to hold onto men who want to return to their families, while kicking out men who have nowhere else to go?
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo in popular culture]]
::::If they had demobilized every second battalion etc, as reported, then when they are preparing for a new war, they would have tried to recruit additional men, and a lot of those discharged veterans may have volunteered to join back in - perhaps even in different regiments?
:Scrape prior to deletion.
::::The concept of “regular soldiers” does not automatically mean they were Peninsular veterans. It is possible that many British line regiments were present in the Peninsular, but that they were not involved in serious battles, or that they had high turnover of personnel in the years before Waterloo – perhaps due to retirements, or demands in North America? I do however agree that it is unlikely that they were all green troops – nobody would try to take on Napoleon with an army of rookies.
:[https://web.archive.org/web/20220324193927/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_in_popular_culture]
::::As a temporary compromise, maybe we could just leave out entirely the text “All of the British Army troops were regular soldiers, and the majority of them had served in the Peninsula. [citation needed] Of the 23 British line infantry regiments in action, only four (the 14th, 33rd, 69th, and 73rd Foot) had not served in the Peninsula, and a similar level of experience was to be found in the British cavalry and artillery. Chandler asserts that most of the British veterans of the Peninsular War were being transported to North America.[61] ”. I’m sure that there are reliable sources somewhere, and then we can fill in the blanks when we find them.[[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk:Wdford|talk]]) 15:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing further to see, move along. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::It was my misapprehension that the following, and an extra bit of text, were from Barbero. Only the extra bit is from Barbero, though. ('In addition, there were 17,000 Dutch and Belgian troops, 11,000 from Hanover, 6,000 from Brunswick, and 3,000 from Nassau.')
::::::All of the British Army troops were regular soldiers and the majority of them had served in the Peninsula. Of the 23 British regiments in action, only 4 (the 14th, 33rd, 69th, and 73rd Foot) had not served in the Peninsula, and a similar level of experience was to be found in the British cavalry and artillery.
:::::In fact, Barbero picks up on the inexperience of British cavalry when compared with the French, on page 141, accessed via the archive.org site. The first part of the text looks plausible to me, but where did it come from?
::::::This was in the article in 2022
:::::::Of these, 25,000 were British.. All of the [[British Army]] troops were regular soldiers, but only 7,000 of them were Peninsular War veterans.{{sfn|Longford|1971|p=484}}
:::::: Not good. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Here is the anonymous edit
::::::'''edited by [[Special:Contributions/82.13.181.124|<bdi>82.13.181.124</bdi>]] ([[User talk:82.13.181.124|talk]]) at 22:25, 4 November 2022 (I have removed incorrect statistics - 30,500 British troops fought at Waterloo, not 25,000, and the claim that only 7,000 of these had seen action in the Peninsula is extremely inaccurate. The source for this erroneous claim was Longford's biography of Wellington. Goodness knows where she got that figure from but it's certainly not based on research.)'''
::::::Hopefully the text can be attributed, else it is POV and the Longford content ought to be added back, in the absence of source material. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 16:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Is Longford generally considered to be a reliable source? [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk:Wdford|talk]]) 22:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 
:Good question. The info attributable to Longford was added at some point prior to 2019, so it would appear. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 10:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like it was added at the start of 2007. [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== Headcount for Wellington's Allied Army ==
 
Hi @[[User:Ochoa diego|Ochoa diego]],
 
The article used to state the following:
:there were 17,000 Dutch and Belgian troops, 11,000 from [[Kingdom of Hanover|Hanover]], 6,000 from [[Brunswick-Lüneburg#Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel|Brunswick]], and 3,000 from [[Nassau (duchy)|Nassau]]{{sfn|Barbero|2005|pp=75–76}}
You have amended the text to the following, but these new numbers are not from Barbero:
:there were 21,035 (28.3%) Dutch-Belgian and Nassuer troops, 11,496(15.5%) from [[Kingdom of Hanover|Hanover]] and 6,124(8.2) from [[Brunswick-Lüneburg#Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel|Brunswick]].
Can you please amend the article, so the actual source of the numbers that you used is showing.
 
Thanks! [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 16:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 16:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 
:Done. Thanks. [[User:Ochoa diego|Ochoa diego]] ([[User talk:Ochoa diego|talk]]) 21:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::Many thanks! [[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 21:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Do these sources definitively lump all the Nassau troops into the Dutch-Belgian army? I think that a consensus of available scholarly sources supporting this is absolutely necessary before it is included in a Wikipedia article. A couple of sources is not sufficient. Wikipedia has to follow the scholarship, it cannot create precedent! See the extensive discussion on this exact subject above. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk:Urselius|talk]]) 10:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Waterloo"