Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Battle of Liepzig

I've been expanding this article and I can sure use a hand here. Its 3 times the size of Waterloo in numbers, days involved, and sub-battles. I've been expanding like a fiend but I can use some quality help. Tirronan 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon and Hannibal

I can't but help noticing that both Napoleon and Hannibal met nearly the same fates. Both had exemplary military careers that ended in a final defeat. Furthermore, in Waterloo as in Zama both commanders ended their battles with the advance of their veteran units. In addition, in both cases the final advances of the veteran units again put up the outcome of the battle in some doubt (to what extent they actually had a chance of succeeding is, of course, debatable). In Waterloo it was the final vainglorious attempt of the Old Guard and in Zama it was the final bloody ending of Hannibal's Veterans.

Even more, the outcome of both battles was decided by the attack of cavalry where the enemy was not prepared to defend. In Waterloo it was the arrival of Blucher's Prussian cavalry that sealed the engagement. In Zama it was the return of Scipio's victorius cavalry that finally crushed the Carthaginians from the rear.

Both also crossed the Alps with huge armies to invade Italy. Finally, both commanders also ended their lives in exile (Napoleon to St. Helena and Hannibal to the Seleucids). The interesting point I wanted to note was that the two may have more in common than most might know.

I'm not really sure how to sign this so I will sign it as:

Bob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.96.77 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting triva! you might want to start an account then you sign your account by placeing four tildes (hit the shift and the key above your tab key) Tirronan 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Last battle

was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle -- It was also Wellington's last battle. Why mention this in the first sentence? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know I never once thought about it? I don't have an opinion where this is concerned but I would think that the point is to bring a quick overview of the article and the result of the battle. What do you propose? Tirronan 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhapse along the lines of ", it was decisive battle in the final/last campaign of the Napoleonic wars". --Philip Baird Shearer 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate given that it was 1 battle of 4 in 72 hours and that the last seige wasn't over until Sept. Tirronan 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive Page 3

I've set up Archive Page 3 when were are ready to start moving sections over. This seems to be getting a bit long. Tirronan 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

British Cavalry Attack Rewritten

I see that this section has been rewritten with many of the old exaggerations as to the level of casualties suffered by the British cavalry repeated. How can a brigade which apparently has lost two thirds of its men killed and wounded in its very first charge then go through a whole long battle and come out with an official casualty level of 46%?

I'm also rather worried by the level of referencing to Barbero's work, which whilst refeshing in coming from someone with no nationalistic partisan axe to grind, has some problems of interpretation, if not of fact.

Virtually the only other referenced author is Hofschroer, an able historian but one with rather obvious axe-grinding tendencies.

There is a low level in the article of referencing any other sources, and a particularly regrettable lack of primary source references.

Urselius 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet you added verbage that could be contested without either... Either provide sources and footnote or I will revert. I think you are correct however I would be much more impressed if the work went along with the opinion. How about this... you made a statement why not back it up and add sourcing and footnotes? Tirronan 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tirronan, and have reverted unless references or consensus are forthcoming. Other properly referenced additions would, of course, be great (Siborne is available on Google books by the way, if anyone has time to wade through it). Casualty rates are tricky things. The discrepancy can be accounted for. It is for both brigades, and as made clear in the article, some of the Household squadrons suffered less than others in the brigade. Secondly, and more importantly, the official casualty figures will have been calculated from the rolls of the regiments and these will overestimate the numbers actually in the field; so, the 16th Light Dragoons, for example, had a theoretical strength of 433, but had only 320 horses at Waterloo. In April, the Government told Wellington that the cavalry regiments had to restrict themselves to 360 horses at the most. The 2/3 casualty rate refers to the actual participants; the official casualty rate refers to the theoretical total regimental strength.

Incidentally, it was already clear in the article that several units of the Household Cavalry, especially the Blues, remained sufficiently intact to take part later on in the day. MAG1 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the fact that you want to contribute but in this article there are about 50 million eyes on it and we do nothing without sourcing, footnoting, and consultation with one another, please join us in making this a better article. Tirronan 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a number of sources in my comment above, I'd be happy to look up the page numbers if they will be usable. I didn't incorporate footnotes because I was unable to work out how to do so, I'm a far better historian than computer operator, this and a willingness to provide material for discussion was why I included my sources in the previously mentioned comment on this page.

In regard to the losses, there are a number of reasons why the numbers can hardly have been much greater than a quarter (for both brigades combined), in total for their first charge.

Firstly both brigades are recorded as being active later in the battle, a formation losing two thirds of its numbers would have lost essentially all of its military effectiveness. Uxbridge personally led the Household brigade in two later charges, as C-in-C cavalry he is unlikely to have placed himself in front a tattered remnant of a brigade (see "One Leg" a biography of Uxbridge by the Marquess of Anglessey 1961).

Secondly eyewitnesses record that the Royals and the Greys fielded two squadrons each AFTER the first charge (squadron numbers were ideally between 120 - 140, up to 200 but absolutely not below about 80, to remain effective); half of the Iniskillings were sent to Brussels to escort prisoners, suggesting that they left at least enough troopers to man a single squadron behind them. This reorganisation puts an absolute lower limit on the surviving effectives after the charge, as very low numbers would have led to regiments being reorganised into single rather than dual squadrons. See letters in Siborne: Letter No. 36: Clark-Kennedy 1st Dragoons (Royals), Letter No. 28: Philip Dorville 1st Dragoons (Royals), Letter No. 35: John Linton 6th Dragoons (Iniskillings) and Glover, Gareth. Letters from the Battle of Waterloo, Greenhill Books London, 2004 Letter No. 68: Quintus Von Goeben 3rd Hussars KGL.

Thirdly, eyewitnesses record the brigades taking casualties throughout the afternoon, from clashes with French cavalry, infantry fire (particularly skirmishers) and more deadly than all from their being exposed to a very destructive artillery fire. Simple logic would suggest that the total casualties must have included a considerable proportion sustained after their first epic charge, this would severely limit the total casualties that could be ascribed to the first clash the heavies were enaged in.

Fourthly the other Anglo/KGL cavalry brigades operating in the same area that the heavies did after their first charge lost an average of 20.5% casualties (see Mark Adkin - Waterloo, for figures). The heavies would most probably have suffered similar levels of casualties as these regiments, as they were involved in much the same levels of combat. If the heavies lost about 20% later in the battle and 45.5% in total their losses (of effectives, ie killed + wounded) in their first charge casualties are not likely to have exceeded a quarter.

Urselius 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Urselius, try this link for help in how to do a inline citation. It leaves a very small link to the URL or the referrence and keeps the article readable.[[1]] Just follow the format we use in the source section if you want more in that regard, personally I would love a better source section. At the moment all I have left to quote is David Hamilton-Williams and he sends some folks to fits of rage. Tirronan 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of a statistical falsehood in your reply: the level of casualties would be a proportion of the survivors, not the original numbers i.e. if there was a pone in five chance of being a casualty in the latter part of the battle, then it would immobilise one in five of those remaining e.g. if 50% (just say as numbers easy) lost in first charge then if the subsequent mortality rate is 20% then 10% of the original numbers, not 20% would have been lost later on. In fact this is not a fair test as Wellington's light cavalry were often charging French heavy cavalry, and suffered accordingly, and also they could do the headless chicken thing as well as their heavier counterparts; in addition, some of the heavy cavalry (especially the Union Brigade) were reluctant to continue charging later in the day as they had had enough (there is a documented example when the Imperial Guard attacked) and so did not suffer the same exposure. The Household Brigade were involved in the charge that drove off the French attacking La Haye Sainte a second time, and later another one to drive off some of the French cavalry; but, they had not suffered 60% casualties then as the damage to their second line had been less than for the rest of the heavy cavalry, and they had kept three squadrons in reserve; however, after this last attack they were so diminished that they were told to go towards the rear and form a single line (rather than the usual double) "to make an impression". When not actively attacking, the cavalry were towards the rear where skirmisher and artillery fire were not eliminated, but were diminished. Many of the "squadrons" remaining after the charge were likely to be very much under strength, and the point is that many were not effective. There remains the point about the difference between roll numbers and number of active participants.

By the way, forgive me if I am telling you how to suck eggs, but if you have not be here much, you may not know that the Wikipedia policy is no original research and quote verifiable references, so in the article (not here) we should not be building arguments, but relying on those developed by others in the published work. It can be a bit frustrating at times, but it really is for the best. MAG1 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why not all the article has citations is that heavy use of citations is a growing trend for the better quality Wikipedia articles. This is an old article and until about a year ago there was nothing like the demand there is today for non contentious sentences/paragraphs to be cited. However experience among Wikipedia editors has shown that citations for all paragraphs helps to improve the quality of an article and to reduce edit wars. Further it makes the article more useful as a tertiary source. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the statistics, I have used a very rough and ready comparison, admittedly. However, I wasn't comparing rates, but overall casualties. If two similar sized units X and Y are fighting in a battle but X wasn't involved in a particular episode that Y was, but the two units saw otherwise similar combat experiences, then taking the casualty numbers of X away from that of Y should give some indication of the numbers of casualties inflicted on Y by its additional combat episode. This is not a perfect method, but if the only solid information available are the roll numbers taken before and after the entire battle it is the only one possible.

The argument about the number of squadrons after the first charge is that they were reorganised. To be effective a squadron had to be of a certain minimum size, and there was an optimum size range also. After suffering casualties commanders would re-arrange their commands into the number of squadrons consistent with their utility. If the Royals for example had only 100 effectives or even 120, then only one squadron would have been formed. That two squadrons were formed suggests that the surviving effectives numbered at least 160, possibly more. By the way Siborne letter 41, from an artillery officer, states that the Royals charged and drove off a body of cuirassiers who were menacing a battery. Not an entirely supine activity for part of the Union Brigade in the afternoon of the battle. After a reorganisation, if the level of combat and threat of combat remains high, THEN, weak squadrons are created as there is no opportunity for active reorganisation. There was a period of probably an hour after the heavy brigades regained the Allied position before they were again in combat, plenty of time for reorganisation to take place. Subsequently such a breathing space was not afforded so existing squadrons would have dwindled in size due to continuing attrition.

I'm not arguing that the British heavy brigades did not suffer heavy casualties in their first charge, a quarter of their numbers lost is a heavy price indeed. My argument is that there is a good deal of evidence that, in terms of numbers of reorganised squadrons and the continuing activity of the heavies later in the battle, that the casualties could not have been as overwhelming as is often suggested. Of course the continuing attrition suffered by the heavies throughout the afternoon meant that at the end of the battle their effectives had shrunk to a few weak squadrons.

A revisionist treatment of this subject was published in an article in First Empire (Issue 88) by Martin Read, so the arguments are in print, if this is some sort of litmus test (First Empire has published many articles by eminent napoleonic historians including Peter Hofschroer).

Urselius 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merde!

I can use some help here. I was looking up sources and I can't find anywhere where the Guard formed squares everybody French was bugging out. The General was captured fairly early as well. Can anybody help? Either I am missing something or this is another Waterloo fable, contempory source please! Not some officers recollection after 20 years. Tirronan 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the original section, but did not keep a note of the sources I used because in those days most people, me included, did not footnote wikipedia like they do now. But here are a few online hints which I found with a quick Google.

I persume you are referring to Waterloo, 18 June 1815: The Finale Captain J.Kincaid, Rifle Brigade. (but I do not know if it is a "recollection after 20 years").

The enemy made one last attempt at a stand on the rising ground to our right of La Belle Alliance; but a charge from General Adam's Brigade again thew them into a state of confusion, which was now inextricable, and their ruin was complete.

DROUET'S ACCOUNT OF WATERLOO

The four battalions, on reaching the plain, fell back from the terrible fire of musketry and grape. The great number of wounded who were detached from them, gave rise to the belief that the guard was routed. A terrible panic spread to the neighboring corps, which precipitately took to flight. The enemy's cavalry, which perceived this disorder, moved forward upon the plain; it was restrained for some time by 12 battalions of the old guard, which had not yet given way, but which drawn in by that inexplicable movement, followed, but in order, the retreat.

Here is a British MOD source it does not give much in the way of details: Battle of Waterloo has a link near the bottom called "here" (ppt) Which has more including the slide 37 outline captions:

• The French Army began to flee…….
• Napoleon formed the Old Guard in squares to stem the torrent…it was impossible.

Edward Shepherd Creasy [http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm FIFTEEN DECISIVE BATTLES OF THE WORLD FROM MARATHON TO WATERLOO: Chapter XV. BATTLE OF WATERLOO, A.D. 1815.]

And, indeed, almost the whole of the French host were now in irreparable confusion. The Prussian army was coming more and more rapidly forward on their right; and the Young Guard, which had held Planchenoit so bravely, was at last compelled to give way. Some regiments of the Old Guard in vain endeavored to form in squares and stem the current. They were swept away and wrecked among the waves of the flyers. Napoleon had placed himself in one of these squares: Marshal Soult, Generals Bertrand, Drouot, Corbineau, De Flahaut, and Gourgaud were with him. The emperor spoke of dying on the field, but Soult seized his bridle and turned his charger round, exclaiming, "Sire, are not the enemy already lucky enough?" With the greatest difficulty, and only by the utmost exertion of the devoted officers round him, Napoleon cleared the throng of fugitives and escaped from the scene of the battle and the war, which he and France had lost past all recovery. Meanwhile the Duke of Wellington still rode forward with the van of his victorious troops, until he reined up on the elevated ground near Rossomme. The day-light was now entirely gone; but the young moon had risen, and the light which it cast, aided by the glare from the burning houses and other buildings in the line of the flying French and pursuing Prussians, enabled the duke to assure himself that his victory was complete. He then rode back along the Charleroi road towards Waterloo; and near La Belle Alliance he met Marshal Blücher.

Again not much detil.

ROBERT BATTY. London, April 15, 1820. An Historical Sketch of the Campaign of 1815, Illustrated by Plans of the Operations and of the Battles of Quatre Bras, Ligny, and Waterloo Battle of Waterloo

Four battalions of the old guard formed squares on the heights near Belle Alliance to check the increasing disorder, and bravely held their ground for some moments against the English cavalry, till even they were drawn away in the vortex of disaster and rout, into which the whole French army were thrown whole columns now threw down their arms and fled, and the panic spread throughout every part of the enemy’s ranks, and the victorious army traversed in triumph the field of battle, which was now a scene of death and destruction such as Europe has seldom witnessed.

There are a lot more online souces, some I am sure much better but I've run out of time for the moment. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What I am getting from PH's book is that if the squares formed they didn't last long and Hackette's battalion had captured the guard general fair before then. I'd sure like your opinion on this as I am inclined to rewrite that section, I didn't see much of an assualt taking place. But I am loath to do it without your consent. Tirronan 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I have presented several online sources which say that they did do this, admittedly confused ones, and I can not remember what I used as a source when I wrote it, but in essence the sources given above.

There are two different sections of the Wikipedia text which we are discussing the first is in the section:"Attack of the Imperial Guard"

After its unsuccessful attack on Wellington's centre, the French Imperial Guard rallied to their reserves of three battalions, (some sources say four) just south of La Haye Sainte for a last stand against the British. A charge from General Adam's Brigade and an element of the 5th Brigade (The Hanoverian Landwehr (Militia) Osnabruck Battalion), both in the second allied division under Lieutenant General Sir Henry Clinton, threw them into a state of confusion; those which were left in semi-coherent units fought and retreated towards La Belle Alliance. It was during this stand that Colonel Hugh Halkett took the surrender of General Cambronne. It was probably during the destruction of one of the retreating semi-coherent squares from the area around La Haye Sainte towards La Belle Alliance that the famous retort to a request to surrender was made "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!" "The Guard dies, it does not surrender!".[29].

The second is "Disintegration" (I have just altered the second left to "(French right)" because to match my earlier edit of "right" to French (left):

The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called La Belle Alliance. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.[citation needed] But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdrawform squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of La Belle Alliance. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn. The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.[46] As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians.

I presume that it is the second one you are talking about. In which case yes as the footnote on the first paragraph makes clear Cambronne was already captured.

I have just done a Google search on [Osnabruck Battalion Waterloo -wikipedia] it throws up lots of pages one of which is this one http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Imperial_Guard_at_Waterloo.htm which (to put it mildly) presents a different view from that of most British authors. It puts it that "The possibility of massive Prussian cavalry attack caused the 1er Grenadiers (the oldest of the Old Guard) to form up in two squares. Not far stood the house of the guide Decoster." This from what I can see on the map that the article provides would be on the high ground behind La Belle Alliance.

This one http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/waterloo-june-1815.htm just say "Three battalions of the Old Guard fought to the end to enable the Emperor to escape from the battlefield as the Allied troops including the Prussians closed in."

So what is it that you think is not correct and needs a rewrite? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it may not be needing a rewrite at all. If it comes to a rewrite it will be by agreement if at all. If you have Peter H's book it has the account from Col Halkett of the Osnabruck Battalion who reported pushing through a mass of retreating French Guard to capture General Cambronne. Perhaps that square had already collasped by the time Halkett's Battalion had arrived to capture General Cambronne? I ask this because the account gives no meantion of squares being formed. They might have been formed later behind La Belle Alliance and that perhaps is the source of my confusion.

I've checked and footnoted your sources and will leave it as is. If someone needs to contest it then they will have to bring a better source than Peter Hofschroer as he reaches that conclusion but doesn't provide enough sourcing to convince me that he isn't quoting just the capture of Gen Cambronne.[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is how I read it. The French guards who attacked the British lines fought a mêlée retreat back towards Belle Alliance and in the confusion both Cambronne was captured and Hill led the first of Adam's charges.

Separate to this (but perhaps some of those from the mêlée reached them). A reserve formation, (Napoleon's personal guard?) formed up either side of La Belle Alliance (actually probably behind it on the slight ridge) one of which contained Napoleon for a time. These are the troops which left the battle field in relativity good order (I'm speculation but probably forming up into something like column of companies so that they could quickly form a shilton like formation if necessary against a cavalry attack). --Philip Baird Shearer 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The squares were formed by three Old Guard and one Middle Guard battalions that had formed the second line of the previous attack, but had not reached Wellington's army owing to the collapse of the first line. They retreated in formation, formed four squares, and covered the French retreat until nightfall when they dissolved. Cambronne and two aides were riding around on the outside of the square encouraging his troops; Hew Halkett (Colin Halkett's brother) called on him to surrender the square; when he did not, Hanoverian skirmishers killed Cambronne's horse and he was apprehended by Halkett (who did not then know who he was). The stuff about the Old Guard not surrendering appeared in a Paris newspaper a few days later; I think Merde! is much more likely in the circumstances, especially when the amount of surrounding noise is considered (though, on the other hand, Cambronne's son said that his father denied to him that he had used the obscenity). MAG1 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources Mag1 Sources, that is what I have read is that Cambronne's was captured by a trooper with a sword bayonet (I don't know about the Hanoverian version but the Prussian sword bayonet would do a galdius proud). I think the concenus is that the statement was a fairy tale invented by a Paris newspaper, at least Elting so states. As for the squares the Battle was finished for all intents at 2000 to 2030 hours and pursuit stopped at Grannape at 2200 hrs with lots of disarray so if the squares existed (and I assume they did) they didn't stay in formation long or Prussian Cavalry would have caught up to them (squares move very slowly and Cavarly quickly). Tirronan 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is Barbero. The squares were around La Belle Alliance until nightfall (~9p.m.?), then broke up and joined the torrent south. I forgot to add there were two further fresh Old Guard battalions who formed squares at La Belle Alliance under General Petit. The Prussian pursuit was relentless (Gnneisenau continued beyond Genappe), but will not have been a the pace of a galloping horse: the Prussians (and their horses) were tired, having overtaken troops, they would have to be dealt with, and they did take the time to obtain plunder as well. I think the fact that Halkett captured Cambronne is pretty nailed on (apart from Barbero, see [2], for example): the Prussians at this time were at the other end of the battlefiled pushing the French out of Plancenoit and Papelotte. MAG1 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hofschrocher is saying that ended pursuit around 10pm and agrees it was Gen Gneisenau that was leading it with a few cavalry regiments and that it stopped at about Gnappe given his sources on all things Prussian I will believe him. If pursuit went any further it won't have gone beyond the next town, the Prussians were pretty exhausted at the start of the battle that afternoon. I agree they were not running anywhere but walking horse and gathering up prisoners and guns. Both would slow them but a square moving at top speed crawls... No Prussian unit was reporting squares at any point so I am assuming 15 to 20 minutes tops for the squares on the battlefield. The timing thing gets really tricky so the best I can do is that when the Prussians were pushing through Placenoit they were running into French mobs running from the British from the opposite flank. More would have been running like hell from Papelotte and adding to the confusion. Where that puts us in timing I don't know. If you have a source from Barbero on a Prussian unit further than Gnappe let me know and I'll adjust accordingly its possible. Tirronan 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hofschroer wrote a comprehensive article on Cambronne's surrender in "Military Illustrated" some years ago, quoting German, French and English sources. Elting's apparent position could not be further from the facts. Cambronne was prodded by a Hanoverian's sword bayonet during the process of being taken prisoner. The Paris newspaper mentioned is likely to be the one that made up the "merde" story.

88.116.59.122 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

conclusion

I've rewriten this and it could stand more work. I don't have good sources about Napoleon's surrender.Tirronan 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll bites

I've set this section up for troll entries to rot.

Interesting that 2 of the 3 peer reviewers challenged reliance on Hofschroer as an unbiased source. Exactly my take on the value of his work. The bottom line is that at Waterloo 50,000 Prussians tied down 10,000 French, while 68,000 Anglo-Allied troops defeated the other 62,000 of them.

I'm looking forward to Hofschroer's forthcoming works "Malaysia 1942: the Australo-Indian defeat" and "America 1783: the French victory". Not holding my breath though. Tirailleur 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I read Colonel Charles Chesney RE late of the staff college UK Waterloo Lectures 1907 (I'm sure he has a Prussian bias too) notes that Lobau's Corp was 16,000 strong, then there are 8 battalions of the Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard and lets be generous and say 10 French guard battalions were only 4000 strong... (Very unlikely but I am in a generous mood) Perhaps the next time you care to inform me of your opinions you will at least take the time to read a single history before you confirm your complete ignorance to the subject. Please take the time to read a few histories before you blast authors whose work I don't believe that you have ever read. Some of us here are trying to make this the best work that we can. This is not a sounding board for your opinions nor do I appreciate your trolling attacks as a means of getting attention. Please either contribute meaningful work or refrain from any further comments. As you may have noticed I was the only one that would bother to respond to you in the hopes that you would understand that you needed to learn a bit about the subject. This is my last communication with you from this point on. You have wasted too much of my time allowing my sense of fair play to be a great court to practice your antics. WP:TROLLTirronan 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blucher defeated Davout after Waterloo??

My understanding is that Davout was never defeated in battle by anyone; there was a skirmish after Waterloo but the French won. Do we have any more information about this? Tirailleur 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire back half of Peter H's book on Waterloo is given to the march to Paris and the siege campaign against the fortresses. As far as I know he is the only author to get that deep into the events after Waterloo. The French won a few battles after Waterloo, lost much more often and surrendered fortress after a good show more often than not. This went on for over 3 months. I'd read his book. Its pretty dry reading but you will gain an appreciation for what happened afterward. Yes Davout lost a few battles very few can claim unbroken strings of victories that can stand close inspection. Tirronan 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)