Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 5

message: Losses from the official returns taken the day after the battle:
Household Brigade, numbering 1,319 (page 217 Adkin, Mark The Waterloo Companion (London 2001))
killed - 95 wounded - 248 missing - 250 totals - 593 horses lost - 672
Union Brigade, numbering 1,332 (page 217 Adkin, Mark The Waterloo Companion (London 2001))
killed - 264 - wounded - 310 missing - 38 totals - 612 horses lost - 631 (Losses from page 544 Smith, Digby The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, (London 1998))
That the Union Brigade fielded far fewer then their official numbers is based solely on a comment by Capt. Clark-Kennedy of the Royals in one of his letters to Siborne, this was expressed as an opinion and was not backed up by any alternative authority.  That the brigade should be down over 300 men after a not very arduous campaign, up to that point, seems unlikely as the horses had not suffered any appreciable strain and were in an areas where plenty of fodder was available and the climate was no different to their native one. 
Some men, such as farriers and surgeons, would have been left in the rear, but such men would have numbered a couple of dozen at most.  It seems incredible that a brigade should have 250+ men sick or injured, or with sick or injured horses, appearing on their rosters.
It can be seen from the figures quoted above that the Union Brigade could not have lost two thirds of its numbers killed and wounded in its first charge, because it lost slightly under half its numbers as casualties for the whole battle.
Even if you believe Clark-Kennedy's estimate that fewer than a thousand men were in the Union Brigade's ranks at the start of the battle, the estimate of two thirds killed and wounded in the first charge still doesn't make sense, because it would mean that the brigade could have experienced no losses at all during the subsequent hours of the battle.  A number of eyewitnesses state clearly that the Union Brigade experienced considerable further losses later in the battle to artillery fire especially, but also infantry musketry and, in the Greys' case, cavalry carbine fire.
It appears that the number of casualties ascribed the Union Brigade, as a result of its first charge,  in the text is based soley on Barbero's opinion, an opinion which takes no account of the official casualty numbers for the whole battle. I would therefore recommend that the numbers be deleted and replaced by some more general expression about heavy losses.  The numbers as they stand seem far too contentious and unreliable to be used with any degree of confidence.  
I have added something to the text which is of uncontestable verity.  The text mentioned British and Dutch "Hussars" charging to push back the French cavalry after the counter attack against the British heavies.  The charging brigades were those of Vandeleur and De Ghigny, they consisted of 4 regiments of light dragoons and only one regiment of hussars.
Urselius 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as uncontestable really, and it is easy enough to state the book and source in a referrence if you would please inline citation and source it.  I noticed in both Household and Union Brigade that the number of horses lost approaches 50% which most armies will conceed is hors de combat for the battle in most cases.  I've no idea when they took those losses and I suspect no one else would be able to pin it down after the battle and I agree with your assertion that a more general statement with cited and noted would be better. Tirronan 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Heavy Cavalry Losses 

message: This seems a bit strange in its wording and I wanted to have a discussion about it and get thoughts on this.  
The Battle of Waterloo, fought on 18 June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. His defeat led swiftly to his final overthrow as ruler of France, as he was defeated earlier at the battle of Leipzig in 1813, for which he was exiled. After his exile, he reinstalled himself on the throne of France for a Hundred Days March, 1815, which subsequently led to the topic at hand.
Tirronan 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I've put us up for peer review.  Please watch for comments and act on them.  I am asking that we all keep tempers firmly in check.  These folks are trying to help us with this article. Tirronan 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: The French cavalry attacks were very memorable to those who witnessed them, I think the section could stand expanding, preferably with some eyewiness accounts added.  There was a definite increment to the numbers of cavalry committed to the attacks over time, it would be good to reflect this.
Urselius 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Cavalry Assaults 

message: One of the things that got brought up was that half the article is British English spelling and the other half is American spelling... I know I am responsible for the American half...  Anyway Philip I think you are the UK half of this... would you mind converting us to the Queen's English?  I can barely spell anyway. Tirronan 02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English or English