UKC

Two hundred years ago today Europe was rid of Napoleon. Surprised and disappointed that Google are not commemorating it with a "banner". Are they scared of upsetting the French? ;-|

In reply to mypyrex:

Well at least we've stopped calling it a British victory seeing most of the Allies were not British.

In reply to Trangia:


I'm not going down that road other than to say that the British played a significant part and maybe galvanised the other allies - albeit of course that Wellington was Irish.

In reply to mypyrex:

Just read a book on it. Amazing.Wellington had a few brushes with French soldiers as he was riding around constantly giving orders and encouragement and was forced at one stage to shelter in one of the famous squares of English soldiers.

Meanwhile Napoleon kept out of harm's way.

In reply to mypyrex:

Belgium have celebrated the event by creating a new euro coin, just to p1ss the French off.

In reply to Trangia:

Britains Allies usually aren't British.

In reply to aultguish:


That was rather Trangia's point, Britain were one of about six allies, with Britain not even being the single largest force within that alliance.

In reply to The New NickB:

It was meant as tongue in cheek

I thought Britain did have the largest faction in the coalition?
The Prussians, who doubled the 'British Armies' strength, were actually a separate Army?

In reply to mypyrex:

I always thought it was a Swedish victory

In reply to aultguish:



It was still an alliance though, even if the Prussians were commanded by Von Blucher, rather than Wellington.

In reply to neilh:


Napoleon's piles were giving him some gyp!

Further to my comment about the Duke of Wellington being Irish, I've just read in the Telegraph that he always regarded himself as English and said that being born in a stable doesn't make somebody a horse.

Realistically, it was mainly a German army and victory (if you apply modern borders).

I remember studying the battle at military college, it was a pretty close run thing and not the glorious victory it's made out to be.

In reply to aultguish:


I think Wellington's own description was something along the lines of "The one I worked the hardest to achieve and the nearest I came to defeat".

In reply to The New NickB:

It was pretty much all of the main monachist empires in europe cacking themselves over continuing republicanism. I don't buy the Napolean as hero tag on the new BBC history show but he did do a damn good job of fighting nearly everyone at once.

In reply to aultguish:



Everyone knows it was very close, that isn't where the notion of a glorious victory comes from.

There was initially very little from the Germans, they'd already been defeated by Napoleon and forced to re-group and Wellington knew that they would have to be held back until later in the day.

The reason Wellington was the obvious commander for the Coalition was that he had trounced Napoleon before and had developed tactics and esprit to do so again. Interesting that in Spain mercenaries swapped sides according to who had most food, the French tending to ransack and pillage whilst Wellington maintained much more of a hearts and minds approach to the locals caught up in someone else's war. That helped develop an ethic that would be needed under extreme pressure at Waterloo.

It was because of this that the Coalition were able to withstand the French onslaught and allow for the opportunity for the Germans to get involved. Even once the Germans were involved it was then due to the resilience of the Coalition under Wellington that they were able to mount the counter attack that ensured overall victory.

In reply to mypyrex:

Watched the BBC programmes and read this in the paper today:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/napoleon-dream-died-wa...

Maybe he wasn't such a bad egg after all?

In reply to winhill:

To be a little pedantic Wellington had never trounced Napoleon, they only fought each other at Waterloo.
He'd beaten plenty of Napoleon's marshals in Spain.

In reply to Pekkie:

I suppose that is to be expected from the Guardian

In reply to mypyrex:


An interesting article! Even if it isn't strictly "from the Guardian".

In reply to mypyrex:


Yep, it's certainly thought provoking.

Must watch the rest of the BBC doc as this is an area of history I know little about.

Always found it interesting that the French don't know whether to celebrate or apologize for Napoleon, whereas over here he is almost as bad as Hitler - a warmonger who brought conflict to Europe, and who first came unstuck in Russia before the Brits finished him off (yes, vast over simplification, and quite inaccurate)

In reply to mypyrex:

...and that trot Andrew Roberts?

In reply to mypyrex:

My favourite quote of Wellington's in a letter just after Waterloo I believe is "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." Sums up the effect of the loss of life even in victory.

In reply to Skyfall:

Carnage similar to WW1: Wellington lost 15,000 dead or wounded and Blücher 7,000; Napoleon's losses were around 25,000 dead or wounded (plus 6,000 to 7,000 captured with an additional 15,000 deserting subsequent to the battle)

In reply to Offwidth:

Very high casualties amongst senior officers on both sides too.

In reply to Pekkie:



That's a poor article by Kettle. It ignores the fact that the UK was a constitutional monarchy by then, and that Napoleon had taken on all the characteristics of a monarch (naming his son, Napoleon II his heir.... and King of Rome).

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I wonder what ordinary citizens' views would have been of the relative equalities and rights in the two countries and the levels of establishment patronage at the top. It was 1918 before all men in England got the vote... lagged quite a bit behind France. The french system at that time seemed to me the best of a bad bunch (quite a few of which in Europe were still feudal). Napolean for all his faults promoted commoners to the very top, based on merit.

In reply to Offwidth:


Casualty figures were evidently higher proportionally than the 1st day on the Somme.

In reply to Offwidth:


But then France only got women's suffrage in 1944. The French were still practising penal transportation well into the 20th century. On the I think real change for common people, happened in different ways but roughly at the same pace across the west (with obvious exceptions).

US and France make a big deal about their 'revolutions', but they forget we had an English revolution which effectively led to the end of the power of the monarchy.


Nelson started off a commoner.

In reply to Offwidth:


Same as Hitler really.

In reply to Offwidth:


Especially if their surname was Bonaparte!

In reply to Offwidth:

I see Napoleon through the lens of Tolstoy, who sharpens into view what anyone should be able to imagine. He was a vainglorious, power hungry monster who led many, many men and women to horrible, unnecessary deaths. To what end? So that he could become Emperor and found a dynasty? Doesn't sound so unique in history.

In reply to Offwidth:


Sadly 200 years too early to join UKC

In reply to mypyrex:


Maybe UKC should have a banner for Waterloo seeing as if Napoleon had won he'd have bolted Stanage and imposed French grades for sure.

In reply to mypyrex:

Have never understood how, of all the great leaders/military commanders/bloodthirsty tyrants/barking dictators (delete as appropriate) throughout history of sufficient stature to be universally known by a single name, Napoleon is the only one known by his first name-what if he had been christened Dave? Get's coat.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

And if Hitler had been born to Alois Sidebottom?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

The Sidebottoms are well known racists and warmongers, with a fondness for Wagner.

In reply to mypyrex:

Would the allies have one if Blucher had turned up two hours later? It seems that the Allied centre at La Haye Sainte having almost broken had recovered. I'm not clear whether Napoleon was forced to divert troops away from the allied centre to deal with Blucher and that this explains his failure to drive home his advantage, or whether the Allied centre had turned the tide irrespective of Blucher's arrival.

Any thoughts from the military history geeks?

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Hannibal is known by his first name as well.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


More seriously, if Alois Schicklgruber hadn't changed his name....

In reply to Postmanpat:

My memory of studying this many years ago is that the general verdict of historians at that time was that we would certainly have lost the battle if Blucher had not turned up when he did.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The French did hold back reserves which could have been used to attack the centre. Likewise the old Guard assault was held back by half an hour or so whilst Napoleon sorted out his flank. So it depends on whether you think that time gave the centre enough time to recover or not. Needless to say opinions vary.
Wellingtons plan was based around the Prussians turning up so its not unreasonable to assume there would have been serious problems if he didnt but its guesswork.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yup, same here. Rereading, it seems that Blucher's arrival allowed Wellington to move some of his own troops from his left flank to reinforce his centre. Simultaneously Napoleon had to move troops, including some of the Old Guard, away from the centre to hold Plancenoit from the Prussians (on the French right, the allied left).

Nevertheless, the final turning points seems to have been the (unexplained) retreat of the Old Guard in the centre which, in itself had little to do with Blucher's arrival.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The what if thought experiments maybe less than helpful but there's no doubt that Napoleon felt he had been the victim of bad weather, just as in the disastrous Russian campaign.

The weather delayed and slowed his advance, which gave Blucher time to threaten his flank. He then overcommitted to the flank when in fact it was already being very fiercely defended (key positions changing hands several times in rapid succession).

He should have driven the Imperials forwards but didn't, possibly because he knew (even planned) that it was going to be a grim battle of attrition and he over protected his favoured troops.

I suspect not only was he happy to see the high casualty rate (which would give him an advantage) he also totally underestimated the ability of the Coalition to mount a counter.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Nelson was from a landowning familiy who were hardly poor and I fail to see what the behaviour of France in the 20th century has to do with the position at the time we are discussing. France were way ahead of England in terms of citizens rights at the time (and we were way ahead of Russia) but this was part of the problem as the rest of europe wanted it stopped before it spread. I'm no fan of the vain Emporer and yes he did promote his incompetent siblings as well as commit genocide on his own people (counter revolutionaries) and surrendered troop (who broke a promise). As I said, best of a bad bunch.

In reply to Offwidth:


It's true that Napoleon had driven out most of the legal and institutionalised inequalities of the ancien regime but wasnt he well on the way to creating new ones? Just like most revolutionary dictators (Cromwell?) he ended up recreating what claimed to despise, in Napoleon's case including the estentatious trappings.
GB was aleady very diffetent to tje ancien regime, for example in that laws and taxes were applied (at lest theoretically) regardless of rank.

In reply to Offwidth:

You used the term 'commoner'. The fact that Britain made faster progress in some area of cvil right throughout the 19th and 20th century demonstrate that your and kettles argument doesn't hold, the status quo in Britain arguably made faster progress than that based on Napolean leagacy (ultimately the Third Republic)


Napolean was a brutal military dictator who overthrew the Directorship (the closest they had to our government). I fail to see how that can be seen as improvement in civil rights.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I don't buy Napoleon as an enlightenment-principled freedom fighter. He spoke a lot about freedom, but re-established slavery in the French colonies after they were freed in the Revolution. He was a nemesis for Alexandre Dumas' father, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, who was a black general (and potential rival).

My view of Napoleon is that he was ultimately doing what he thought best for himself, with the glory of France secondary. It was 'Caesar or the Republic' all over again, and he answered the same way. The carnage he visited on Europe was many times more devastating.

As for Waterloo, as a battle it was a coalition, and Wellington said himself it was a close run thing. Doesn't mean that it wasn't a glorious victory - don't see those as mutually exclusive. Regardless of who was responsible for winning the battle itself, Britain or Prussia (or both, really), Napoleon surrendered to the British as "the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous of my enemies".

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nonsense, alongside the bad, he changed the law in positive ways. The napoleonic code went on to be the basis of improvements in many countries.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yes, I agree with that and it was inherits in my statement that he removed the inequalities of the legal system of the ancient regime.

In reply to Offwidth:

The 18th royal navy was a well known route upwards for men of modest backgrounds. Only about a quarter of midshipman were of gentry or aristocratic backgrounds, albeit most of the rest has naval or seafaring connections.

Promotion was surprisingly meritocratic. People might favour their cousin, nephew or old friend but if they didn't cut the mustard under fire on the poop deck it wasn't worth giving them a second chance.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

No he didnt. He was the son of a Norfolk Vicar and joined the RN as a Midshipman at the tender age of 11 (or maybe 12. Like most successful Naval Officers of the day was very well connected and this is what got him his Midshipman rank in the first place.

In reply to Gone for good:

Yes he was, he was not part of the nobility. They weren't poor and they had connections, but still 'commoners', like Kate Middleton was. He actually joined HMS Raisonnable as an ordinary seaman but was soon bumped up by his uncle the Captain.

My point is that in a society heavily ordered by class things were slowly changing and the RN was an example of this, I assume in their case moving towards a meritocracy was a necessity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quilliam