200 years ago this week...

[Mike the Pike]

In the early hours of June 15th, 1815, or around lunch time in late Edo-era Japan, advance units of the French Army of the North clashed with Prussian Pickets/Picquets, signalling the start (the shooting part anyway) of the Waterloo campaign.

Waterloo, arguably, one of the most significant battles in history. The grand finale to the Napoleonic era. A battle that helped shape Modern Europe (for better or worse). One of the most hotly debated battles in history, the list of 'What Ifs' must surely exceed any other battle. A battle that, although it occurred when some forum member's countries didn't even exist in their modern forms, still captures the imagination of so many.

So in honour of the anniversary, I give you this topic, for you to ramble on, mull over,froth at the virtual mouth over, cut and paste from Wikipedia to, and ponder. To add a little focus to our ramblings I give you the following questions....

1) Why does the battle still capture the imagination after 200 years?
2) Why do many consider it one of history's 'greatest' battles?
3) What is your favourite 'What if?' from the campaign?

What say you savages?

[Primarch]

1. - It's been covered in various forms of media to a fairly large extent and is probably the last time France was seen as a threat to peace in Europe. Napoleon was one of, if not the, greatest general of all time at his peak and this was his big comeback and final throw of the dice all in one.

2. - Well, you've got Britain's best and brightest at the time, Wellington, fighting a defensive battle (at which he excelled) leading a coalition of forces from the British Isles and North West Europe against the aforementioned greatest general of all time nominee Napoleon. At the same time, Blucher is racing against time to come and swing the tide in favour of the alliance. So many armies, nations and excitement packed into one small battlefield.

3. - What if Abba had named the song Ligny?
What if Belgium had kept the 2 Euro coin?
What if Napoleon had had a competent general staff and had been well enough to command himself?

[YellowStreak]

Is it also partly because the battle was so well documented at the time? (that is my understanding) As well as being a grand 'final battle' to convincingly end a war? (an uncommon occurrence?) Perhaps it also seemed in hindsight to be the end the age of 'civilized' warfare? Or perhaps the also uncommon occurrence that one of the combatants was the emperor himself?

For the Americans on the forum, are any civil war battles held in similar esteem? Bull Run? Shiloh? Anteitam? Gettysburg? I guess none of those were as 'decisive' as Waterloo?

Even in WWI or WWII there was no 'final' deciding battle. WWI being a war of horror and attrition was a grind until one side could take no more, and in WWII Midway and Guadalcanal saw the beginning of the end for Japan, D-Day saw the beginning of the end for Germany - but none of them was a 'final battle' that ended the war.

[Mike the Pike]

June 16, 1815, the twin battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras.
The British and their allies hold off Marshal Ney all day before retreating in good order towards Mt. Saint Jean. Ney's failure to take advantage of the situation as it unfolded is considered one of the biggest 'What Ifs' of the campaign.
The Prussians meanwhile face their old foe Boney and are sent scampering once again. Blucher even gets ridden over several times during the chaos. 'Old Forwards' soothes his wounds in a bath of Brandy before rallying his army and heading off the next mornings o keep his promise to support Wellington.

[Primarch]

I think Ney does get a raw deal when we look back at Quatre Bras. With what he had available to him he succeeded in preventing the British from linking up with the Prussians, he forced the allied army to fall back and a lot of the allied units involved were mauled by the French.
An equally possible scenario is 'What if the allies had had better reconnaissance reports and had heeded them?' Instead of facing the advance guard and piecemeal reinforcements at Quatre Bras, would Ney have been as succesful if Wellington had been able to deploy the entire army?
So many mistakes, errors in judgement and missed chances happened on both sides of the campaign, it's impossible to determine who should have won if things had been slightly different.

...though Ney was kind of a chump and took far too long getting things underway, I have to admit.

[job]

Well, to just add an American perspective to MikethePike's original questions.

1. To be honest, Waterloo is not really taught in American primary education. It might be referenced, but as I recall my sophomore World History text didn't give Napoleon much more than a few pages and mostly it highlighted the Napoleonic Code and the growth of Enlightenment and Liberal ideals across Europe. I think for most Americans, the whole episode is completely overshadowed by the American Revolution on one side and the gradual build-up to the American Civil War on the other. Then there are the concerns of Industrialization, westward expansion and the issue of slavery that dominate the narrative. Oh, there's something in there about the links between the American revolution and the French one, Jefferson's failed attempts at economic boycotts of the British, and then that whole "second American Revolution", or as a Canadian might see it, "The (failed) American Invasion of Canada". Of course, we don't highlight the fact we discovered Canadians are actually Canadians and not Americans by another word, and there's much halle-boo about our super-frigates preying on British frigates, the destruction of the Native American resistance in the Ohio valley, the burning the President's mansion thereafter known as the White House (the whole episode was in reprisal for the American burning of York, Canada), finally there's the whole Battle of New Orleans fought in 1815 and won entirely after the War of 1812 was declared over. It might be mentioned the British Army at New Orleans contained many of Wellington's veterans from the Peninsular campaign, just one more "What if" for Waterloo. So, the short of it is, Waterloo hardly registers in the American imagination.

2. I suppose it is as Yellow-streak wrote, it is the grand finale! There's also the meeting of Wellington, who would be towering personality and politician after the battle in Britain, and Napoleon, the little upstart Corsican. Blucher can only add to flavor. The 100 Days is a dramatic and conveniently tidy episode and Waterloo didn't let down.

3. I suppose my favorite "What If" would be if Napoleon had not delayed in throwing his Middle Guard against the British center. Maybe it was all too little too late, but many people point out how precarious things had become for both sides. It might just be all that Jazz about the Guard and "Res ad Triarios Venit". Honestly though the British still had Meitland's Brigade and the Dutch were waiting in the woods.

The other two "What ifs" are if Napoleon hadn't dithered at Ligny in the morning and had more time to complete the victory. And on the following day, the 17th if he had pursued immediately instead of waiting to give vague orders to Grouchy after breakfast. Really it was the Prussians who tipped the whole affair into the Allied favor. Napoleon probably had the day at Waterloo if he didn't have to account for the flood of Prussians falling on his flank and rear.

And couldn't agree more about Ney and Quatre Bras.

[jehan-reznor]

Wut battle?

I think it was the Russian campaign that killed Napoleon dreams, and started his decline

[Primarch]

Wut battle?

I think it was the Russian campaign that killed Napoleon dreams, and started his decline

If Napoleon had won at Waterloo, there was a chance he could have dealt with the forces from Austria and Russia as well. The earlier Russian campaign had ended French dominance in Europe, but it was Waterloo that prevented a succesful comeback tour and finally ended things. The fact that Napoleon could just waltz right back into the country and pick up where he left off shows that he was still a credible threat despite the results o previous battles.

[job]

I think JR has the right of things. Even if Napoleon had won he would still have had to dealt with the Russians and Austrians with a national army that was under prepared for war. On top of which the congress of Vienna meant his enemies were towing the same line and British financing wasn't going to disappear anytime soon. Just to add insult to injury, his only Ally, Murat was defeated and killed fighting the Austrians knocking out the Kingdom of Naples.

Finally his stomach and body were giving out on him clearly. He didn't have the frenetic energy of his youth.

Waterloo is fun to speculate and exciting to read about, but I think Borodino and Leipzig were far more significant to the history books.

[Mike the Pike]

Tonight's viewing....

[url=https://flic.kr/p/uPawNw]