Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 6

message: The article says there were 3,000 Nassau troops but the Order of Battle article indicates there were more than that in Saxe-Weimar's brigade alone. 
Haythornthwaite (Uniforms of Waterloo) says there were 8 battalions of Nassauers totalling 7,180 men. 
Five were in Saxe-Weimar's brigade and the other three were in Kruse's Nassau Contingent, whch was part of the Reserve, and was deployed in the centre behind La Haye Sainte. 
3,000 would be about right for Saxe-Weimar alone on the day (one battalion was detached to Hougoumont). Tirailleur 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nassau contingent 

message: I wonder if it's worth adding one? 
Eg:-
- Myth: There was a sunken road which the French cavalrymen were unaware of and which caused terrible losses when they fell into. The boring facts: This was actually made up by Victor Hugo; the Allied cavalry had no trouble negotiating the sunken road. 
- Myth: The 92nd Highlanders grabbed the Scots Greys' stirrups as they charged. The boring facts: This one seems to have been made up by the Victorian painter Lady Butler; there are no contemporary accounts of it. 
- Myth: La Belle Alliance means the beautiful alliance. The boring facts: It doesn't, unfortunately; it means the beautiful wedding-ring. Beautiful alliance would be le bel alliance.
Tirailleur 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The building of the Lion's Hillock, changed the edge of the escarpment and the sunken road--Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been watching this page for a while (I was going to attempt to un-Americanise the English but never seemed to have the time), so I hope no-one minds if I throw in my 2p worth. Adding a Myths section to the article might make an interesting inclusion, with the worthy purpose of serving to debunk some silly ideas, but I don't think it would actually contribute to the already high quality of the article. IMHO, hiving off the Popular culture section was also a good idea, and the article is better focused as a result. Maybe a separate page for debunking Myths if it has to be included? EyeSereneTALK 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on myths? 

message: I'm moving older discussions to Archive 5 Tirronan 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving older discussions to Archive 5 

message: I've asked for an assesment on the article and we are back to a class B. Tirronan 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion to Class B 

message: After rereading Chesney, this section might be revised.
Before leaving Ligny, Napoleon gave Marshal Grouchy 33,000 men and orders to follow up the retreating Prussians. A late start, uncertainty about the direction the Prussians had taken and vague orders to Grouchy meant that he was too late to prevent the Prussian army reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington.
There is nothing in this statement that is wrong, but it misses the point that the Prussian 2rd Corps was still on the field collecting up the artillery park and logistics train. They moved off in a very slow pace completely ignored by the French.  It was 2nd Corps arrival at Placenoit that swung that positional battle.  It was one of the strange inexplicable pauses that the French army imposed upon itself that contributed to the defeat at Waterloo.  Also noted by the late attack at 1300 hrs on the emtpy Quatra Bra position. Tirronan 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude 

message: I've been pretty quiet on this page for awhile and the reason was that I have been checking, rereading, and rechecking, my sources.  There are some things that should be outlined in a new article hived off from this one.
There have been enough bad histories writen that there are areas of the campaign that should be taken on:
* Forward slope basing of Prussian troops at the Battle of Ligny.  This 1st came up when Wellington started attacking Siborn 20 years after the event.  There isn't a bit of proof that this actually happened and much to say where the troops were deployed.
* Groucy's not marching to the battlefield.  Chesney is mericless on this one as is Clauswitz and Muffling.  He would have had to deliberately disobeyed orders at 7am to have arrived in time for Waterloo, by 12pm-1pm it was too late and no road would have delivered him to the battlefield before 8pm at best.
* Its become apparent that Napoleon nor Groucy had a clue where the Prussians were and in what numbers through out 17th to the 18th in the campaign (until it was far too late that is).
* Ney's ordering of the cavalry charges, this was ordered by the reserve cav commander and both Napoleon and Ney watched it happen without comment when it was well in their ability to have stopped it.
* Ney's supposed faults at Quarta Bra just don't seem to hold water.
* D'Erlon's mistake of not joining Napoleon at Ligny, Napoleon in fact sent a letter to Ney remonstrating him for allowing D'Erlon to be so out of position.  He seemed to be of the opinion that he had things well in hand and didn't require D'Erlon at all.
* Lies from St. Helena, after the fact Napoleon wanted to blame everyone else for his mistakes.
* Tactical/Stratigic conclusions, where were the mistakes made and who made them.
* Call out the outright lies that seem to hover around the battles.
I am asking for opinions here if this will in fact be worth it or its just best to leave well enough alone. Tirronan 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be quite interesting and useful actually.  Given the wide ranging differences between accounts and the fact these are largely unknown amongst the general public, an article pointing out this sounds like a good idea.  Could be as contraversial nowadays as it was in Wellington's day though!  If you fancy the role of Siborne, I'd say go for it and good luck!Benea 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought about this for sometime but I keep coming to the conclusion that attracting ever troll on wiki to the page just flat isn't worth it.  I've decided to go ahead and complete my degree in history and perhaps this would make a great thesis.  We've got another troll sniffing around looking for a fight (over Napoleon's title of emperor of all things) to get into here and getting into fights with pea brains just isn't my forte. Tirronan 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point I guess.  Pity that people like that can stop valid content being added to push a point of view.  I noticed that as well.  By his reckoning, whenever we mention Augustus Caesar we should be careful to point out he was the 'self style' Emperor.  But oh well, I suppose I should follow your example.  I've an essay overdue as it is. Happy reading. Benea 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that they're poor.  The first is crystal ball and against Wikipedia policy for a start, as well as irrelevant.  Also I think if we start comparing contributions and declaring some major and some minor, then we're on a dangerous path strewn with bitter arguments.  Best to keep POV out of this as much as possible, and if we get someone saying the Prussians had the biggest contribution and the British were just there to mop up, we're going to have someone rushing to assert otherwise.  I'd say lose the second paragraph and maybe just keep a bit about how Russian and Austrian armies were on the way, and leave it at that. Benea 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove those shortly, I agree its crystal ball though I doubt that France of 1815 was going to repulse all of Europe when fully mobilised it couldn't in 1814.  Britain wasn't the dominent power in Europe, France recovered, Germany was forming, and Austria was still a player though a weakening one.  Britain wouldn't interfer in the US Civil War as it was admitted it was a war it couldn't win against another rising power.  The trying to say otherwise flys in the face of history. Tirronan 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths, lies, and conclusions 

message: I've recently put a couple of the national flags into the infobox to standardise this with other battle pages.  I haven't been able to find any flags for Hanover, Nassau or Brunswick though.  There is a coat of arms for Nassau, however, and possibly the coat of arms of the House of Hanover.  Should these be put on, or it left as it is, or does anyone know where some suitable flags or symbols might be?  Small fry really compared to discussing where the Prussians were at what time, I know, but it might improve the style a bit more.  Cheerio!  Benea 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Flags

message: Napoleon, with the reserve and the right wing of the Army of the North, made a late start and joined Ney at Quatre Bras at 13:00 to attack Wellington's army, but found the position empty. The French pursued Wellington's army, but the result was only a brief cavalry skirmish in Genappe just as torrential rain set in for the night. Many historians say that if it wasn't for the rain, Wellington's army would have probably been defeated. 
I'd contest this as well, the fact that the UK forces marched and the French couldn't do so in the same weather is silly.  This was another of the strange pauses that you get during this campaign.  This was happening at the same time the Prussian army was making a very slow stroll off the Ligny battlefield unmolested. Tirronan 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but it is on record that Wellington uttered the words "Thank God for Blucher" when told of the arrival of the Prussian Army. It has long been accepted that the Prussians saved the day. I am so surprised this is even questioned here. David Lauder 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The day" would not have happened if Wellington had not judged that Blucher would arrive in time to help him. It was a Coalition victory because as planned they combined to defeat Bonaparte, or alternatively it was a French defeat because Bonaparte failed to stop them combining. But either way it was a close run thing. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude 

message: I've got info on the actual orders from Napoleon and when they arrived on the 18th.  I've also got the report to Napoleon from Groucy on the 17th.
* On or about 10pm Groucy reports that at least 3 Prussian Corps have moved through the area he is moving through and that he believes that the ultimate objective is the plain befor Brussels where the Prussian's will combine with the British.  He notes that he believes they are currently collecting at Wavre.  This makes a few things a bit clearer, he understood the Prussian intention but not that a battle was going to take place at Mount St. Jean (if anyone other than Wellington did at that point).  The other thing is that he was expecting orders, again pointing out here that Napoleon hadn't given enough instruction to his desires at this point.
* On or about 6am Groucy recieves orders to drive through Wavre pushing the Prussians with a sword at their back.  Here it becomes apparent that Napoleon thinks that the Prussians are in full rout.  Nothing they have seen should have given them that impression except that most of the Saxon and Rhineland (new and reluctant Prussians at this time) are taking the opportunity to vote with their feet). Groucy moves to his orders with speed and proceeds toward Wavre.  
* On or about 4pm another message repeats the same orders in the same way and Groucy proceeds into the Battle of Wavre.
* On or about 6pm the last order arrives demanding he push through the Prussians and get to Napoleon's flank.  
* At the time of the opening of the Battle of Waterloo the nearest road was a 6.5 to 8 hours to march 33,000 over its doubtful that this could have been done and the Prussians were in the way of this route at the time also moving from Wavre to Waterloo.  Chesney quotes the work of a historian that walked the route about 50 years after the event.
* Groucy was making little headway in the battle until a crossing is discovered unguarded.  This crossing was covered until the corp covering it moved off to Waterloo.
* Groucy didn't receive another order until mid moring on the 19th ordering him to fall back and reorganize retreating French forces for the defense of Paris.
There was a goof made but it wasn't Groucy's it was Napoleon's.  How Groucy was to drive 85,000 Prussians with 33,000 men unless it was in full rout is beyond me.  Several of the French Marshals had been defeated chasing "routing" Prussian armies before, and so had Napoleon at Laon.  He should have known better. Tirronan 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Groucy

message: I've added one of the best descriptive eyewitness accounts of the French cavalry attacks to the appropriate section.  A remarkable description well worth reading.
I've also modified the wording of the start of the British heavy cavalry attack section. I introduced a mention the excellence of the sword training that British cavalry received, which I think is appropriate.  As it stood there was, other than mention of the quality of mounts, a litany of the faults of the British cavalry with nothing to counterbalance it.  Anyone reading the passage might then be extremely puzzled how two brigades of such poor quality cavalry could rout a brigade of cuirassiers and five brigades of infantry.
Urselius 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, eye witness accounts are just that, it has been stated that the most ignorant guy on a battlefield is an infantryman as he doesn't see nor will he care about anything beyond his line of sight, this includes most officers of battalions.  It isn't that they don't care but rather it is a matter of survival.  Your muster counts on the 19th are about as close as you will get.  PH stated that the closer French units got to Paris the more they started to distergrate due to desertions.  Given his predaliction for digging up arcane scripts and translating them I'd have to believe him. Tirronan 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation added 

message: The Prussian sections seem a little terse and could benefit from some extra material.
Perhaps a separate section on the fall of La Haye Sainte and its consequences (or lack)?
The page as a whole might benefit from some more eye-witness quotations.  They are often descriptive and lively, and would add colour to the narrative.
Urselius 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: The line:
"A counter-charge by British and Dutch light dragoons and Hussars on the left wing...." could benefit from amendment. Ghigny's brigade had a Belgian regiment (8th Hussars) and a Dutch regiment (4th Light Dragoons).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  130.88.150.208 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does one distinguish between Dutch and Belgian regiments given that they were part of the same nation fighting in the Netherlands Cavalry Division? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but "British " is not a synonym for English. If a Scottish regiment is mentioned fair enough but one would not usually write the "Charge of the English, Irish and Scottish heavy cavalry" (no offense meant they are in alphabetic order) one would write the "Charge of the British heavy cavalry" --Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: AFAICT following you logic, when the British Army launches an attack involving units from the Brigade of Gurkhas then one should write British and Gurkhas attacked, but one does not one writes "the British" eg: Falklands War#The fall of Stanley, because it is the British Army attack. I see nothing wrong in writing Dutch if it is referring to units in the Dutch army. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign. But it is only of limited use because for example the Scots Greys were the the Royal North British Dragoons. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it was the Neathersland Cavalry Division outlined by brigade and regiment.  I'm afraid that I agree with Phillip here as there is nothing to say which was which and I understand the modern distintion but as it applies to unit designations that would be as far as it goes, 1st Karbineers 1st Brigade Neatherlands Cavalry Division if that particular unit would be involved.  I certainly don't have issue with a short statement that the Netherlands Divisions were combinded Belgian/Dutch formations drawing from the populations of both countries as they are today to clear up the Belgian's populations contribution to the effort as I believe that is a historic fact.  I further understand that forced combination of the two countries at the time wasn't at all popular and thus the split later in time.  However this is a simple recounting of the battle as we best understand it at this time and not intended as a slight to the Belgians.  Let me look at some of my sources if anything denotes a Belgian unit by designation in some of my other orders of battle I will post here. Tirronan 22:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But does Dutch not mean of the Netherlands as British means of the UK? What distinguishes "Dutch light cavalry" from "Netherlands'light cavalry"? As for the historical context, one would not normally say British-Irish just because the UK no longer includes most of Ireland. (BTW by 1831 Belgium was an independent kingdom so what Siborne writing in the 1840 could easily have political overtones). Also the French imperial guards included in the 2nd Brigade of the Guard Heavy Cavalry Division, Dutch, French and Polish lancers, so should we start to qualify the term French cavalry? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think that the English term "Dutch exclusively refers to the inhabitants of the 7 provinces", and not whatever the Netherlands happens to be inhabitants of the territory of the state at any particular time?  I was not referring to Borodino, it was Polish lancers who wounded Frederick Ponsonby of the British 12th Light Dragoons. So while I have no problem referring to the specific unit as Polish I don't think that the term "French cavalry" at Waterloo needs to be termed "French-Polish cavalry", the British "British-Irish cavalry" or the Dutch "Dutch-Belgian cavalry". However if an individual regiment is named then the nationality like Scottish Belgian or Polish can, and probably should, be mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is what I said above with regards to individual  units, so I am happy with that, but they should be described as Dutch not "Netherlands" cavalry. The first place to add this information should be to the Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign. Also while that is being added can someone look over a problem I highlighted on the talk page 
of the OOB back in November 2005 --> See Talk:Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign#Dutch Belgian Cavalry Division --Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgians 

message: Captain Mercer's account of the effect on his RHA troop of Prussian friendly fire:-
"The rapidity and precision of this fire was quite appalling. Every shot almost took effect and I certainly expected we should all be annihilated. Our horses and limbers, being a little retired down the reverse slope, had hitherto been somewhat under cover from the direct fire in front; but this plunged right amongst them, knocking them down by pairs, and creating horrible confusion...The whole livelong day had cost us nothing like this. Our gunners too...were so exhausted that they were unable to run the guns up after firing...the guns soon came together in a confused heap, the trails crossing each other...I sighed for my poor troop - it was already but a wreck." Tirailleur 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on friendly fire 

message: "While the campaign hung in the balance for most of its duration, the decisive battle became the Battle of Waterloo."
I think this needs a re-write.
I don't think it "became" it was the decisive battle, I think no-one who was present doubted, at its end, that the battle had been decisive.
It became known as Waterloo in English speaking countries - but this is a separate matter, it was known as the Bataille de Mont Saint-Jean in France.  'Old Nosey' used to name all his battles after the place where his HQ was, in this case it was at Waterloo.
Urselius 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro - poor sentence 

message: I've started work on that page if anyone would like to come over and help it would be appreciated. Tirronan 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Ligny

message: Hi there, great article, makes a good job of understanding a relatively complex battle. There are however a few points which should be addressed before this is ready for GA.
===General points===
These are a few ideas to bear in mind for the article, and to enact as you read through.
*Link all commander's names when they are first mentioned, even if this results in a red link. Perhaps you will be asked to remove them later if you are going to FA, but at the moment i think it would be best to link as many as possible. Some seem interesting but without a link a reader cannot find them. (e.g. Lobau, Bauduin, Donzelot, Milhaud etc.)
*throughout the text, links to "Battle of . . ." should not have a capital "B". Please change these to lower case. 
::- No, "Battle" is the name and is correct. A reference to "the battle" should use lower-case. Otherwise,  leave out the "Battle of" and just refer to the battle's name. (Tom H)—Preceding unsigned comment added by  86.3.205.122  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007
*In placces there are very short paragraphs which make the text look choppy. try to merge some of them together. I have indicated most of these instances below.
*I will address specific problems below, but the text as a whole could use a copyedit to make sure it is clear, at some points it drifts into uncertainty and should be cleaned up.
*More references for such an important article are probably needed. The article is (except for a few parts) well referenced enough for GA, but if you plan to go to FA then more references and perhaps more sources are required.
*It would be nice (although by no means necessary) to use some textboxes with quotes from people who were at the battle to enliven the text in places.
*Are there anymore maps of the battle, the one there was nice and more would help the article?
::- Please proof read the above as there are mistakes, e.g. 2nd rather than "second" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by  86.3.205.122  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007
===Specific Points===
*Lead should be longer and give a slightly better brief overview of the circumstances of Napoleon's banishment and return. Aim for three substantial paragraphs on this. The quote from Wellington looks odd as a cquote in the lead, I recommend integrating it into the text.
*The first paragraph of the prelude is unreferenced.
*Shorter paragraphs in prelude should be merged, I recommend putting the 3rd, 4th and 5th and the 6th, 7th and 8th together to make two larger paragraphs.
*The false intelligence mentioned is unclear - either explain it, remove it or link to somewhere which explains it.
*The end of the 2nd paragraph of Prelude is not clear, it repeats itself about Wellington's orders and doesn't present a clear timeline.
*The 7th paragraph of the prelude is again unclear, particulaly with regard to Ziethen's Corps, what did they actually do on the day? Also be consistent on whether you use "1st Corps" or "I Corps".
*Conclude the prelude with the attention focused on the battlefield of Waterloo, at the moment there is no logical link between prelude and armies.
*the last sentance of the 2nd paragraph in armies is a little clunky, I know what you mean but try to explain it a little better.
*The paragraph on the Prussian army is also a little unclear and could probably use some expansion.
*In battlefield make it clear whose position you are talking about at which point.
*1st two paragraphs of battle should be joined together and explain who Bulow was i.e. that he was the vanguard of the reinforcement's sent to aid Wellington.
*Source the legend of the Gordon Highlanders grabbing the stirrups.
*Link or explain in a footnote the term Cuirassiers (I know they are French heavy cavalry but many readers won't)
*In Charge of heavy cavalry, the term alternative view is incorrect, say something like "historians have estimated that . . ." and give sources and if possible, names.
*In the same paragraph you talk about the deaths of Ponsonby and Hamilton twice, the reapt is unecessary.
*Give a time of the French cavalry attack, don't just say "at this point".
*3rd paragraph of FCA has no references.
*Palcenoit - the church was "fully involved" in a fire? Just say it was burning.
*source Wellington's spoiled my battlefield quote.
*perhaps some information of the longer lasting importance of this battle, which afterall is one of the most notable battles in modern history. If this is too much then consider a seperate article about it, but ignoring the longer legacy of Waterloo is not possible.
I realise this is something of a long list and that some of these issues may be a little advanced for GA, but I wanted to give you as thorough a review as I could. If it too much then don't worry, lets just see how much gets done and go from there. I think this article could easily be a GA ina  couple of days and congratulations for all your hard work.--Jackyd101 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to mention yesterday, but when you believe the article ready for me to look over again send me a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to go over it again. Don't worry about the seven days thing either, even if that expires I'll simply review the piece for GA as if it was a new nomination. I see there is a lot of good work going on, keep it up. All the best--Jackyd101 10:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: *Lead should be longer and give a slightly better brief overview of the circumstances of Napoleon's banishment and return. Aim for three substantial paragraphs on this. The quote from Wellington looks odd as a cquote in the lead, I recommend integrating it into the text.
*The first paragraph of the prelude is unreferenced.
*Shorter paragraphs in prelude should be merged, I recommend putting the 3rd, 4th and 5th and the 6th, 7th and 8th together to make two larger paragraphs.
*The false intelligence mentioned is unclear - either explain it, remove it or link to somewhere which explains it.
*The end of the 2nd paragraph of Prelude is not clear, it repeats itself about Wellington's orders and doesn't present a clear timeline.
*The 7th paragraph of the prelude is again unclear, particulaly with regard to Ziethen's Corps, what did they actually do on the day? Also be consistent on whether you use "1st Corps" or "I Corps".
*Conclude the prelude with the attention focused on the battlefield of Waterloo, at the moment there is no logical link between prelude and armies.
*the last sentance of the 2nd paragraph in armies is a little clunky, I know what you mean but try to explain it a little better.
*The paragraph on the Prussian army is also a little unclear and could probably use some expansion.
*In battlefield make it clear whose position you are talking about at which point.
*1st two paragraphs of battle should be joined together and explain who Bulow was i.e. that he was the vanguard of the reinforcement's sent to aid Wellington.
*Source the legend of the Gordon Highlanders grabbing the stirrups.
*Link or explain in a footnote the term Cuirassiers (I know they are French heavy cavalry but many readers won't)
*In Charge of heavy cavalry, the term alternative view is incorrect, say something like "historians have estimated that . . ." and give sources and if possible, names.
*In the same paragraph you talk about the deaths of Ponsonby and Hamilton twice, the reapt is unecessary.
*Give a time of the French cavalry attack, don't just say "at this point".
*3rd paragraph of FCA has no references.
*Palcenoit - the church was "fully involved" in a fire? Just say it was burning.
*source Wellington's spoiled my battlefield quote.
*perhaps some information of the longer lasting importance of this battle, which afterall is one of the most notable battles in modern history. If this is too much then consider a seperate article about it, but ignoring the longer legacy of Waterloo is not possible.
I realise this is something of a long list and that some of these issues may be a little advanced for GA, but I wanted to give you as thorough a review as I could. If it too much then don't worry, lets just see how much gets done and go from there. I think this article could easily be a GA ina  couple of days and congratulations for all your hard work.--Jackyd101 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to mention yesterday, but when you believe the article ready for me to look over again send me a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to go over it again. Don't worry about the seven days thing either, even if that expires I'll simply review the piece for GA as if it was a new nomination. I see there is a lot of good work going on, keep it up. All the best--Jackyd101 10:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Points

message: I have just noticed that the article makes no mention at all of one of Wellington's more controversial pre-battle decisions, which was to leave 17,000 men at Hal to his northwest. 
We should put something in about this. Wellington has been criticised for this disposition by several historians over the years - Naylor and I think also Chandler - but others (forget who) have supported it. The criticism is that he left valuable troops too far from the battle to support him. The response to this is that the Hal detachment provided a force to rally on if he were defeated and had to retreat to Antwerp, and, as Wellington did not know the whereabouts of all Napoleon's troops, represented a reasonable positioning of a reserve against any flank march. We know - as Wellington did not - that the "missing" French troops on the 18th were to the east, not the west. 
According to Mercer, it was generally understood in the army by early May that, in the event of a French attack, Wellington would aim to draw them onto one of two prepared and reconnoitred positions. One was at Waterloo, and the other was at Hal. Mercer was billeted west of Brussels, so he rode over to look at the Hal position. He doesn't say much about what he thought of it, but it sounds like a classic Wellingtonian defensive position. There was a series of ponds strung along a small river which was crossed by a bridge where three roads met. To the north was what he calls a "steep" ridge (by local standards perhaps) and to the south another one. It sounds like the Waterloo position with the added frisson of a nice little water obstacle for the French to cross and a choke point (the bridge) enfiladed by well-built fortifiable houses all around it.
I will dig out the Mercer quote tonight. I am re-reading him at the moment but I had clean forgotten that bit. Interesting, no? Tirailleur 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wellington's dispositions at Hal 

message: Well, I think my level of expertise on this topic is dwarfed by that of the main authors here, but I have found a fantastic collection of first hand accounts of the battle on google books , published in 1815. I will, as I get time, dig through this for passages relevant to particular parts of the battle, and insert these as quotes. If nothing else it's interesting to see the POV in the language used on both sides. -Kieran 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textboxes with quotes 

message: Is it just me or is there a large blank space at the top of the article at the moment?
I'll look up something supportive for the unreferenced paragraph of the "French Cavalry Attack."  There ought to be plenty of examples in Nosworthy's book on tactics.
Urselius 08:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank 

message: If anyone wants to "enbiggen" the quote in the French Cavalry Attack section to fit it in with the style of the others feel free.  The cut and paste of code required is a little beyond me at present. -Urselius 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. :) -Kieran 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: Much was made in print, not least by Vivian himself, of the part played by Vivian's hussar brigade in spearheading the final British advance.  Perhaps some mention of this might be made.  At present there is no reference to any Allied cavalry being active in the final advance.
Also the text reads as though all the British/Allied infantry leapt forward in the final advance, but I remember at least one witness say that some of the most depleted and physically exhausted batallions simply piled their arms and sank down where they stood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 19:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
Urselius 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final advance 

message: I'm not sure if this is mentioned in the article, but Wellington seems to have been extremely mobile throughout the battle, giving orders, gathering information and inspiring his troops across the battlefield. I have a great quote for this, but I don't quite know where to put it:
Is it perhaps worth having a section on the personal actions of Wellington and Napoleon during the battle? -Kieran 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a picture:  "A Rifleman of the 95th Rifles presents Wellington with a cup of tea on the morning of The Battle of Waterloo" - By Aylward or "The Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, offering encouragement to the infantry at some stage in the battle" - By Robert Hillingford? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both of those, are we allowed to use them? Tirailleur 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As near as I can make out, faithful two-dimensional reproductions of paintings do not produce a new copyright (at least in the USA). Thus, provided the artworks themselves are out of copyright (usually true if they're more than 100 years old), then they're usable. I looked at those links, however, and they're not very high resolution images. If we can't get better copies, though, they could do. -Kieran 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it that simple? The pictures my be out of copyright, but arn't those digital copies of the pictrures still in copyright? I think that the copy of tea drinking picture may be OK because it is on the UK MOD site and there is a Wiki template for material from The Crown, but the other picture's copy is on a commersial site. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal actions of the generals