Waterloo:200 years on

Manach

Giving the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, are their any interesting resources out there? I've finished reading Bernard Cornwell's well written book on the battle as well as Andrew Robert's excellent Napoleon the Great for context.

As well, what for me was always of interest was the involvement of other nationalities. These include such as the Dutch, Hanoverians and especially the Prussians in what had seemingly been portrayed as an English victory. Reading of the Prussian Blucher who was prone to bouts of madness, known as "Marschall Vorwärts" help to understand the period a bit more.

riffmongous

Manach wrote: »

As well, what for me was always of interest was the involvement of other nationalities. These include such as the Dutch, Hanoverians and especially the Prussians in what had seemingly been portrayed as an English victory. Reading of the Prussian Blucher who was prone to bouts of madness, known as "Marschall Vorwärts" help to understand the period a bit more.

Same here, I love reading about all the minor nations who were involved, particularly Bavaria, Saxony and the Poles. I've even managed to get a good chunk of the 1814 Bavarian Corp in model form.

I was wondering recently if Waterloo was really as important as all the attention it gets or if it's mainly because the British were involved and they like to remember these things, compared to say Leipzig which was a much bigger battle but rarely gets a mention outside of its anniversary? Can anyone give a guess at what would have happened if Napoleon had won?

Fratton Fred

Napoleon had plans to conquer Europe. Waterloo was the decisive battle that stopped him doing so.

I'd say it was pretty important.

If he had won, the countries you mentioned would have regrouped and tried again and again I guess.

riffmongous

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Napoleon had plans to conquer Europe. Waterloo was the decisive battle that stopped him doing so.

I'd say it was pretty important.

If he had won, the countries you mentioned would have regrouped and tried again and again I guess.

But were the plans realistic though is what I am wondering? Surely there must have been a lot of war weariness in France by this point after the losses of the previous years

Fratton Fred

riffmongous wrote: »

But were the plans realistic though is what I am wondering? Surely there must have been a lot of war weariness in France by this point after the losses of the previous years

I guess war weariness goes when you are winning. But it was amazing that the French so quickly followed him again when he returned from exile in Elba.

Manach

From reading Roberts the French were fairly enthused to follow Napoleon. The heavy handed actions of the Bourbons aided this. As well,it was by no means certain the French would have lost. When Waterloo is wargamed, the French army triumphs based on an early dawn attack and the massed infantry assault on the ridges of the battle. Defeating thus the two allied armies might have staved off intervention by the Russian / Austrians.

JohnFalstaff

Manach wrote: »

From reading Roberts the French were fairly enthused to follow Napoleon. The heavy handed actions of the Bourbons aided this. As well,it was by no means certain the French would have lost. When Waterloo is wargamed, the French army triumphs based on an early dawn attack and the massed infantry assault on the ridges of the battle. Defeating thus the two allied armies might have staved off intervention by the Russian / Austrians.

There is a new documentary on TG4 tomorrow night to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. I think it focuses on the Irish and Scottish foot soldiers that fought in the Battle, but it could be worth a look.

Fratton Fred

Manach wrote: »

From reading Roberts the French were fairly enthused to follow Napoleon. The heavy handed actions of the Bourbons aided this. As well,it was by no means certain the French would have lost. When Waterloo is wargamed, the French army triumphs based on an early dawn attack and the massed infantry assault on the ridges of the battle. Defeating thus the two allied armies might have staved off intervention by the Russian / Austrians.

There is an article on the BBC website that shows how close it was.

pedroeibar1

Manach wrote: »

From reading Roberts the French were fairly enthused to follow Napoleon.

Yes, but they forgot him rather quickly. For all the streets, avenues, boulevards and squares/places in Paris named after national and foreign statesmen, aviators, scientists, generals, etc., etc., there is not one named after Napoleon and only one (rue) named Bonaparte, and that after Nap.III.

Harry Palmr

Andrew Roberts is presenting a three parter on Napoleon at the moment, part one has been shown. (BBC Two)

Arsemageddon

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Yes, but they forgot him rather quickly. For all the streets, avenues, boulevards and squares/places in Paris named after national and foreign statesmen, aviators, scientists, generals, etc., etc., there is not one named after Napoleon and only one (rue) named Bonaparte, and that after Nap.III.

He doesn't even get the glory of having the type of custard slice known as a Napoleon named after him, it's just a corruption of the earlier name Neopolitan.

That's my culinary fact of the day.

Jesus.

...

whisky_galore

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Yes, but they forgot him rather quickly. For all the streets, avenues, boulevards and squares/places in Paris named after national and foreign statesmen, aviators, scientists, generals, etc., etc., there is not one named after Napoleon and only one (rue) named Bonaparte, and that after Nap.III.

On France 24 today, they referenced a newspaper article that ran with something along the lines of that he was the "French Superman", so I wouldn't say he's entirely forgotten. How many streets have we named after Collins (OK an Army barracks... I'll concede that) or Dev?
I wouldn't draw conclusions about street names, I'd say a goodly quantity of Dublin street names are those of long-forgotten peers.

As regards the 200 anniversary, from the gist of the presenters...don't think the French will be flocking to see the re-enactment of an historic ass-kicking.

Trizo

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Yes, but they forgot him rather quickly. For all the streets, avenues, boulevards and squares/places in Paris named after national and foreign statesmen, aviators, scientists, generals, etc., etc., there is not one named after Napoleon and only one (rue) named Bonaparte, and that after Nap.III.

There are a lot of myths about Napoleon and as they say history is written by the victors so these myths were accepted.

Really is worth reading up on him, In France he is generally viewed in a favorable light what we have to remember is he brought stability to France when it was in chaos he was also not responsible for the wars in which he was engaged in, after the revolution the monarchies of Europe were bent on restoring the Bourbons to the French throne forming coalition after coalition to attack France.

There are tons of landmarks in France and specifically Paris which bear his mark , the rue de la paix was formally named rue de Napoleon (renamed after the bourbon restoration) , many of the streets in Paris (Rivoli, Castiglione etc) are named after his generals or victories incl the Arc de Triomphe and the Place de la Concorde is a tribute to his conquest of Egypt. The Civil code(Code Napoleon ) still forms the basis of the French system. There are many other too.

pedroeibar1

whisky_galore wrote: »

On France 24 today, they referenced a newspaper article that ran with something along the lines of that he was the "French Superman", so I wouldn't say he's entirely forgotten. How many streets have we named after Collins (OK an Army barracks... I'll concede that) or Dev?
I wouldn't draw conclusions about street names, I'd say a goodly quantity of Dublin street names are those of long-forgotten peers.

As regards the 200 anniversary, from the gist of the presenters...don't think the French will be flocking to see the re-enactment of an historic ass-kicking.

I see your point but I’d suggest that it is not a fair comparison – Collins and Dev represent opposing sides in a "recent" civil war so a street naming would be divisive. (Although there is a de Valera Park near Thomond Park in Limerick.) There are many streets names after less “emotive” patriots – O’Connell, Parnell, Davis, Pearse. How many thousands (literally) are named after de Gaulle, not just in France, but even in places like the US (I know there is one in El Paso!) and Poland?

I’m not saying there is no interest in Napoleon, but I’m implying that he is a person conversationally avoided as politically divisive, the next step being to introduce Sarko! I always got the impression in France (business people, not academics) that their sentiment on Nap I was that he was the orchestrator of his own downfall, that he was unlucky, that he deserved to and should have won his battles, that he had great ideas and France suffered two ways because of him (a) the damage he caused (population dispersal & decline) and (b) due to the non-execution of his plans. Just consider his achievements – the unification after an extremely bitter and bloody Revolution, the codification/redrafting of law, the establishment of professional colleges e.g. the Ecole Polytechnique, today remaining one of the two top academic institutions in France, the provider of the best business/engineering graduates. Even in industry his legacy is huge, - under him sugar refining from beet was made possible (no imports because of blockades) and WWI sugar shortages made this new State put a sugar industry on the top of its industrial agenda in the 1920's

Last year the Paris Region Tourism body conducted a study on the perception by tourists there, French & international, of French history, including the main historical personalities as to their importance. For the foreigners Napoleon I came first at 74%, de Gaulle 46%, Jeanne d’Arc 43% with Louis XIV at 26%. The British had Nap at 84%. The French tourists put de Gaulle first at 70% followed by Napoleon at 62% . The Japanese were, after Napoleon, most interested in Marie-Antoinette. Interest in Napoleon was very high, the Russians being in pole position.

The full study is here

PS @Trizio - I was writing sporadically off-line and did not see your above post

pedroeibar1

Arsemageddon wrote: »

He doesn't even get the glory of having the type of custard slice known as a Napoleon named after him, it's just a corruption of the earlier name Neopolitan.

That's my culinary fact of the day.

Mille feuille. Here's another - 215 years and four days ago the Battle of Marengo took place. M. Dunan, Napoleon's chef created "Poulet Marengo" for him after the battle. Whatever about the combination of ingredients in that dish (I'd also question the need for the fried egg on top) Napoleon had good taste in wine, he was a fan of Chambertin.

Also, while I think of it, some of Nap's battles are used for naming Metro stations - Austerlitz, Pyramides, .....

tac foley

Let us not overlook that the present Swedish royal family was only there because Napoleon put one of his generals there as king.

The present King Carl Gustaf is a very pleasant gentleman altogether, including his family name of Bernadotte...

tac

Peregrinus

Yes. Of all the royal families that Napoleon installed across Europe, the Bernadottes are the only ones who are still around.

It shows you the long-term value of a well-timed change of sides!

donaghs

One thing I've never read about until recently in this campaign was the relative harshness of the Prussians towards French prisoners, civilians and infrastructure. Don't have the quotes to hand now, so will have to rely on good ol' wikipedia:
A British order "placed the officers and men in his army under military order to treat the ordinary French population as if they were members of an Coalition nation. This by and large Wellington's army did paying for food and lodgings. This was in sharp contrast to the Prussian army whose soldiers treated the French as enemies. So they plundered the populace and wantonly destroyed property during their advance".
Avesnes: "Prussian soldiers, treated it as a captured enemy town (rather that on liberated for their ally King Louis XVIII), and on entering the town, the greatest excesses were committed by the Prussian soldiery, which instead of being restrained was encouraged by their officers".

My immediate thoughts on reading this was: was this a portent of Germany in the 20th century? But obviously I think that's reading too much into it. And the Germans states had suffered greatly from invasions and occupations by Revolutionary and Napeolonic France, so there was a revenge motive.

But reading more, those nagging thoughts about German militarism still come back. e.g. Robert Southey the British poet laureate after the Battle wrote this in the notes on his Waterloo poem:
"What I have said of the Prussians relates solely to their
conduct in an allied country ; and I must also say that the
Prussian officers with whom I had the good fortune to asso-
ciate, were men who in every respect did honour to their
profession and to their country. But that the general con-
duct of their troops in Belgium had excited a strong feeling
of disgust and indignation we had abundant and indisputable
testimony. In France they had old wrongs to revenge, . . and
forgiveness of injuries is not among the virtues which are
taught in camps."

The treatment of Belgians is interesting. They were Allies in fighting the French. Brings to mind their treatment in WWI.

Peregrinus

May be relevant that Belgium was not a separate country in 1915; it did not become so until 1831. It was a French-speaking and disaffected part of the Austrian Netherlands up to 1794, then it was incorporated into France where it had more or less remained up to 1815. So, culturally, "Belgium" just meant "the parts of the (newly-constituted) Kingdom of the Netherlands which are populated by Frenchmen". Belgum was allied territory, therefore, but it was populated by people identified as the enemy.

Manach

donaghs wrote: »

One thing I've never read about until recently in this campaign was the relative harshness of the Prussians towards French prisoners, civilians and infrastructure.

You are correct & I'm not disputing this. This tallies with primary evidence.

However this might need to be place in context. The French developed the concept of levee en mass and total war. This involved living off the enemy's land and harsh treatment of their civilians. From accounts of Napoleon's campaigns' in the Orient, Italy and Prussia this is what happened - with instances of summary executions in case of resistance. Thus the Prussians, who up till the Gnuissean reforms had been a smallish professional army, learnt this from the French.

riffmongous

Which the British would not have experienced at home either

Perhaps the British would have also had a more enlightened attitude from their experiences fighting in Spain? Because 1798 wasnt all that long ago either.

donaghs

Peregrinus wrote: »

May be relevant that Belgium was not a separate country in 1915; it did not become so until 1831. It was a French-speaking and disaffected part of the Austrian Netherlands up to 1794, then it was incorporated into France where it had more or less remained up to 1815. So, culturally, "Belgium" just meant "the parts of the (newly-constituted) Kingdom of the Netherlands which are populated by Frenchmen". Belgum was allied territory, therefore, but it was populated by people identified as the enemy.

We can call it the Netherlands, and yes there would be French speaking sympathizers in the south of what's now Belgium. But the Netherlands armed contribution to the anti-Napoleon coalition came from both the modern Netherlands and Belgium.

Peregrinus

donaghs wrote: »

We can call it the Netherlands, and yes there would be French speaking sympathizers in the south of what's now Belgium. But the Netherlands armed contribution to the anti-Napoleon coalition came from both the modern Netherlands and Belgium.

Sure. But for the Prussian soldier in the-parts-of-the-Kingdom-of-the-Netherlands-that-are-now-Belgium, as far as he was concerned he was standing in a place that had until recently been part of France, and that was historically and still populated by Frenchmen. So the Prussian behaved there much as they behaving France, and for much the same reasons (as pointed out by Manach). Basically, as far as the Prussians were concerned, the French had it coming to them. And they weren't going to avoid that fate just by being lucking enough to be living in a province annexed by the Netherlands.

Fratton Fred

riffmongous wrote: »

Which the British would not have experienced at home either

Perhaps the British would have also had a more enlightened attitude from their experiences fighting in Spain? Because 1798 wasnt all that long ago either.

Wellington's policies probably played a big part as well I suspect.

tac foley

A little OT story about King Carl Gustaf from a few years back...

An American tourist [AT] was walking around the Saturday Market in Stockholm with his Swedish host [SH], when a figure at one of the stalls, apparently buying some fruit and vegetables, caught his attention.

AT - 'Hey, look at that guy over there! Doesn't he look like the king?'

SH - 'Of course, he looks like himself- it IS our king.'

AT - 'What? Are you kidding me? Where is his protection? Where is his secret service personnel? Who is taking care of him, guarding him?'

SH - 'What do you mean, who is taking care of him? All of us - WE are taking care of him'.

tac

Arsemageddon

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Mille feuille. Here's another - 215 years and four days ago the Battle of Marengo took place. M. Dunan, Napoleon's chef created "Poulet Marengo" for him after the battle. Whatever about the combination of ingredients in that dish (I'd also question the need for the fried egg on top) Napoleon had good taste in wine, he was a fan of Chambertin.

Also, while I think of it, some of Nap's battles are used for naming Metro stations - Austerlitz, Pyramides, .....

Just after looking up the ingredients for Poulet Marengo - :eek:!!!!!!!!

tac foley

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Mille feuille.

Also, while I think of it, some of Nap's battles are used for naming Metro stations - Austerlitz, Pyramides, .....

...Waterloo.

After all, he WAS there for the battle, even though he came second.

tac