Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 2

message: I'd like to change this section slightly as it refers to Division's in Bulow's 4th Corp.  The Prussians use a Corp/Brigade system.  If there are any thoughts please let me know before I make the change.
Tirronan 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of battle 

message: There is much in this Article that bothers me more than a bit.  The problem with Waterloo histories is that often national honor seems to be at stake and historians need to be a blind justice of what actually happened not what we think happened.  It is not just Waterloo of course there is just as much of these issues in the American Civil war histories as ever was in Napolenic histories.  If a unit is reported as routing can't we look at the unit histories and confirm that the unit did indeed run?  At least 2nd hand accounts if we can't read German and French (I'm an English speaker only unfortunately).  There are serveral aspects of the battle that are completely left out.  Some of the sections are less than clear.
This section should be up for an edit 
"Ambiguous orders by Napoleon on the 17th to his subordinate Marshal Grouchy, to pursue the Prussians with 30,000 men, contributed to Napoleon's eventual defeat. Because Napoleon took his time issuing orders on the morning of 17 June, Grouchy started the pursuit late on 17 June, by which time the Prussians had disengaged. Precious time was lost locating the main body of the Prussian Army, by which time it was too late to prevent it reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington. On the 18th, with the right wing of the Army of the North, reinforced with a cavalry corpsGérard's, he engaged the Prussian rearguard under the command of Lieutenant-General Baron Johann von Thielmann at the Battle of Wavre."
Further to the above it might be good to be explicit about at least one example of the uncertainty of histories. In particular the British version of the battle history compiled by Captain William Siborne and an author says perhaps disowned at the time by Wellington himself. The account has been the basis of much subsequent british comment about the source witness materials he collected. He contends that it has now been revealed [i.e. Waterloo new perspectives, the great battle reappraised;D Hamilton-Williams; 1993; Brockhampton Press; 1860199968] that Siborne's history is based: firstly on British views only,  secondly on a selected set of witness accounts with significant unresolved contradictions to the excluded set and lastly that the selected set's content may have been influenced by financial considerations. There has been a strong rebuttal of his views and he perhaps is now discounted. But the predominance of the British viewpoint in a battle largely fought by others is significant. So unless there are objections i'd like to add a paragraph that covers this aspect of many still existing versions of the Waterloo history. Facius 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critic on Article 

message: The charges made by "Hamilton-Williams" (that is NOT his real name) were shown to be false years ago. Anybody that has read Siborne's History will see that he used German and Dutch sources. They are mentioned in the forewards to the various editions of his History. And anybody that has read Hofschroer's "Wellington's Smallest Victory" gets chapter and verse on Siborne's correspondence with the Prussians and Hanoverians, along with mentions of the German language sources used. Any chance we might try to get our facts right here?
Itzenplitz
I think it was understood long ago that David Hamilton-Williams was a pen name.  Peter Hoffschorer was pretty damning in his critic on DHW.  I also hold Siborne in higher regard and loved his scholership at a time it wasn't popular.  He did consult with Dutch, Prussian, and Neatherland, and other sources.  I consider his work stellar.  DHW however did point out facts that no one else was willing to talk about in English histories on Waterloo.  Given how angry folks got about his work I can't say that I blame him on the pen name.  I found much right though I regret his stance on Siborne who was owned much and received little. Tirronan 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hamilton-Williams 

message: I have some general questions and observations about this entry. 
1/ ISTR that Napoleon initially targeted Wellington because the latter had a military reputation that Napoleon wanted to destroy, for reasons of achieving a quick and spectacular success. When the Prussians instead concentrated in a forward position at Ligny, beyond Anglo-Allied help, he hit them instead. I forget what source this was from - Chandler? - but it was cited as evidence of the flexibility of the French strategic system. Does anyone know if it's true? 
1a: It is true that Napoleon was very aware of Wellington's reputation.  However Napoleon didn't go after the British to confirm his own reputation.  Napoleon was far too great a general to allow that to influence him.  He had to eliminate in rapid succession both the Prussian and British armies.  To that end he defeated but could not destroy the Prussian army.  1b: The reason for the Prussian defeat were many but 2 major factors stand out.  Bulow's 4th Corp was late to the battle due to willful misunderstanding by General Von Bulow.  The Prussian deposistion in forward positions appears to not be the case (Hoffschroer), However posistioning an entire Corp to the left in a posistion that could not be taken (swampy ground) was a factor.
Tirronan 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some questions about tactics etc 

message: added an unreferenced tag since there are no sources for anything in the article - PocklingtonDan 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced 

message: I would suggest the the suggested reading be moved to the reference section as Peter H's work is what I use as well as Chandler.
Tirronan 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  referenced 

message: The latter part of the first paragraph is confusing and slightly incorrect. I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit it, but it'd be great if someone else could. Xiner 02:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the intro 

message: Does that really belong into the further reading section? I'd think that was reserved to scientific material, not fiction. I must confess I read a large number of Sharpe novels as a teenager, but they have little in common with actual history.--Caranorn 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sharpe's Waterloo" by Bernard Cornwell