|
Post by Beth on Apr 29, 2015 19:08:54 GMT -6
linkArchaeologists and veterans excavating the Waterloo battlefield have found spent musket balls from some of the first shots exchanged between the French and Allied troops. The discovery was made at Hougoumont farm in Belgium, a Napoleonic farmhouse that was defended against seemingly impossible odds by the Coldstream Guards. Military historians hope the excavations will uncover mass graves of the tens of thousands of soldiers who died on the battlefield, an area of a former woodland which was bitterly fought over in 1815. Dr Tony Pollard of the University of Glasgow, who is leading the team, said he is “confident” that the spent musket balls found at the southern part of the wood from “shots fired very early in battle, probably in the first exchanges” of fire during the Battle of Waterloo. “We know that shots were exchanged between the French and Allied armies in these woods during the night before the battle, as the French probed the allied position and the first real fighting took place in the same spot,” Dr Pollard said. Experts also discovered three horse chestnut trees which they believe are riddled with musket balls, after sophisticated metal detectors revealed a high concentration of metal inside the trees. This is the first time the Waterloo battlefield has been subject to a large scale and systematic archaeological excavation using sophisticated technology. Two weeks prior to the team's arrival, experts in soil sensing from Ghent University, Belgium used sophisticated detectors to identify any anomalies in the ground indicating potential areas of interest for excavation. Archaeologists plotted the GPS co-ordinates of their finds on the the military historian William Sibourne's battlefield map from the 1830s, which showed a distinct pattern of heavy fighting on the western side of the wood. The yellow marks show musket balls and pistol balls - both French and British - while the white marks show other metal items form the Napoleonic era such as badges and buttons in a clear line leading back from the edge of the wood back to the farmhouse. “Those woods were heavily contested in the battle,” said Stuart Eve, a partner at L P Archaeology and a member of the excavation team. “When the battle started, the fighting was on the southern end of the wood, we know this from eyewitness accounts. “The Allies held the woods at first, but the French came in and pushed them back towards the chateaux. What’s interesting is that it looks like a running pattern going up that pathway.” During the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815, thousands of Napoleon's troops attacked Hougoumont farm, which was held by British forces under the command of the Duke of Wellington. The French army had been told by Napoleon to seize the farm, a cluster of 12 buildings situated in woodland and a strategic position on the Mont St Jean Ridge, a few miles from Brussels. The battle reached a critical moment with 14,000 French soldiers on the brink of breaking into the chateau compound and securing victory, when Corporal James Graham, a 24-year-old guardsman, closed the large gates of the farm while under fire. Napoleon's forces were eventually defeated and Wellington later declared that "the success of the battle turned upon the closing of the gates at Hougoumont". The archeological project is part of Waterloo Uncovered, devised by two Coldstream Guards officers, Major Charles Foinette who currently serves with 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, and Mark Evans, who suffered from PTSD following his experience in Afghanistan. British veterans, some of whom were wounded in recent campaigns and some who are still serving in the Coldstream Guards make up part of the 30-strong excavation team. They arrived at Hougoumont on Sunday for a week-long dig, which is the first phase of an excavation project spanning three to five years.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 29, 2015 20:49:42 GMT -6
::sigh:: The battle of Waterlook happened at the Duchess of Richmond's ball, when Wellington asked to see a map of the area around Brussels and circled where he planned to fight. Unfortunately Wellington when he drew the circle he obliteraged the K and the place became known at Waterloo.
Trivia. Austin TX was a settlement named Waterloo when it was selected to be the capital of Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 30, 2015 4:43:14 GMT -6
When you think about it desperate men do desperate things and the decision by Napoleon to attack a British army defending a ridge line and in wet weather was a big mistake as not many armies could take British army volley fire without breaking, but I suppose he had no choice but to attack as time was not on his side.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2015 7:34:50 GMT -6
You always have a choice Ian. The attacker, or better said, the side that holds the initiative always has a choice between assault and maneuver. Napoleon held the initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 30, 2015 8:48:08 GMT -6
Chuck you know about the battle of Quatre Bras, in one of my books it says that Ney made a mistake in not occupying these crossroads earlier, Napoleon gave the orders to do this at 0600, Ney received the order at 1100 but never took any action until 1400, Ney even neglected to inform the II Corps about any move. Ney also launched his cavalry during the battle of Waterloo thinking that the British were retreating and they got slaughtered.
In Sharpe’s Waterloo Wellington said “he has humbugged me” well his actual words were; Napoleon has humbugged me, by God, he has gained twenty four hours march on me.
How did Napoleon hold the initiative? The British and their allies held the high ground and the Prussians were closing in, Napoleon launched his attacks with one eye on the clock which to me was crazy as even if he won the day at Waterloo his army would have been badly weakened by the assaults and would have used up a lot of ammunition, then they would have had to do it all again in fighting Blucher and his 50.000 Prussians.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 30, 2015 8:49:21 GMT -6
I believe Napoleon had the same malady as Custer, contempt of foe. If you don't respect your opponent you will lose just about every time in football. Can't be much different in war I would think. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2015 10:34:22 GMT -6
Wellington moving to the crossroads at Quatre Bras to delay the French advance was a reaction to what Napoleon was doing. Occupation of Mont St Jean Ridge that masked Brussels was a reaction to what Napoleon was doing. Everything from when Napoleon crossed the Franco-Belgian border until Wellington launched his counterattack late in the day points to the fact that Napoleon had the initiative. Even the Prussians marking to Waterloo was in response to something Napoleon was doing. When you are responding instead of taking the actions you want to, you do not possess the initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 30, 2015 11:06:40 GMT -6
The town of Waterloo is found mentioned in documents as far back as 1102, before Hastings, says Wiki. Why in the world would you believe a Belgian town speaking German or French for centuries, would have an English name?
The archeologists, so called, and the "vets" can have zero idea if the musket balls found have anything to do with the battle. Certainly likely, but not proven. If we learn anything from the LBH, it's that a "discovery" followed by highly detailed assurances of exactly what they are and what they mean, are near always improbable or wrong outright. And compared to Waterloo, the LBH is Brigadoon in its virgin status. Sweeping declarations are designed to inspire financial support and media interest but those who've "studied" the LBH for years ought to be far more cynical.
It does grant a moment to enjoy Wellington again. The guy who'd know and who said:
"All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know by what you do; that's what I called 'guess what was at the other side of the hill'.
"There is nothing so stupid as a gallant officer."
"Nobody in the British Army ever reads a regulation or an order as if it were to be a guide for his conduct, or in any manner other than an amusing novel."
A good read - very funny - is On The Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman Dixon. It does not discuss Custer, mainly focuses on British military history, but it is a highly regarded work as those who've actually read Andrew Gordon and recent works from competent militaries would know. Kindle book, but it's widely quoted around the web as well. Shaka (a Zulu), Wellington, Haig, and many famed officers are subject to his analysis, which as Gordon notes is accurate to a shocking degree in how officers who arise during peace might function in war. He notes the idiotic obsession to compare war with sports, and the weird theory of muscular Christianity the Brits lived by to an alarming degree. And, because they did, so did the US and others.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Apr 30, 2015 12:22:34 GMT -6
Operationally the best performance in the 1815 campaign was Blucher, then Napoleon, then Wellington. We could start a Wellington dawdled thread to discuss his poor decision making 14-17 Jun 1815. Wellington was a deer caught in the headlights. French actions did not meet his expectations. Rather than react to their invasion, he delayed movement 36 hours. Blucher, by contrast, reacted immediately. What is damning is that Wellington lied to the Prussians, saying he was reacting when he was not. He wanted the Prussians to hold off the French while he tried to make up his mind. The problem is this violated his premade plans and agreements with the Prussians dating to 3 May. Further, he had a face to face meeting with Blucher, where he lied and said support was enroute. This was 12 hours before he ordered his forces to move.
It's like ordering your advanced guard to lead the units attack in the valley, and then not entering the valley.
The book 1815: The Waterloo Campaign by Peter Hofshroer provides a reasoned analysis of this campaign.
I visited Waterloo as a young buck second Lieutenant. What blew my mind was standing at La Haye Saint and looking at the locations of the Prussians. They were not on the French flank, but deep in their rear. The Prussians and Young Guard were fighting in a village that cut off the all the French Forces to the right of La Haye. The Prussian objective was the In oddly named La Belle Alliance, which would, and did, cut off the French retreat. The village whose name I can't recall is in plain sight from the battle ridge. The French soldiers would have known they were screwed.
I am not claiming Wellington was another Monty. I have extensively studied his career, owning about 200 books on his work. Operationally, this was his worst performance. Tactically, he remained,...well,...Wellington.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 30, 2015 14:11:58 GMT -6
What are we judging Wellington on here? The actual battle of the days and weeks leading up to it.
He knew he was facing the French and positioned his troops accordingly he had under his command his own British army along with units from Holland, Hanover, Brunswick and Nassau. He faced Napoleon supposedly the best field general of all time, yet Wellington made him pay dearly for every yard and every building on that field and Napoleon threw his best at him including the old guard and failed.
Wellington certainly didn’t have a bad record against the French, Napoleon on the other hand had a good record against the Prussians with victories at Jena and Auerstedt.
Imagine if Wellington was relying on the Prussians to stop Napoleon, my money is on Bonaparte to rout the Blucher and then take on Wellington.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 30, 2015 15:04:45 GMT -6
I believe Napoleon had the same malady as Custer, contempt of foe. If you don't respect your opponent you will lose just about every time in football. Can't be much different in war I would think. Regards Dave I don't know if Napoleon had contempt for Wellington. He was in a hurry to face the English/Dutch troops in the Low Countries to defeat them before having to turn his attentions to the larger Austrian/Russian forces that were approaching. He didn't want to fight a 2 front war and was hoping that if he had a decisive victory agaisnt Wellington then perhaps he could negotiate for a peaceful coexistance with the rest of the European forces. As a result he only took part of his forces North sending the bulk to face the Russian/Austrian forces. --If I am remembering right. Napoleon felt that the if he needed to hit Wellington as quick as possible before they were totally organized (remember British troops were still arriving in Europe up to the day of the battle. He was also hoping to discourage the Prussians from committing any more forces. Napoleon did humbug Wellington by moving his forces out of France so quickly, plus I seem to recall that Wellingon had indications they would be using a different road to approach Brussells. The irony was that Napoleon's actions on the days leading up to Waterloo left Wellington with the perfect conditions for the type of battle Wellington prefered to fight. BTW I wonder if theTambora Volcano eruption in April 1815 was a factor in the rain that day. It put out so much dust in the area that the next year was called the year without a summer. Beth I really hope that this message is coherent.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 30, 2015 15:57:40 GMT -6
The town of Waterloo is found mentioned in documents as far back as 1102, before Hastings, says Wiki. Why in the world would you believe a Belgian town speaking German or French for centuries, would have an English name? Hastings battle was1066, had family there. Know nothing about town names, but fighting raged in France and Belgium against Brits, in the1200's and 1300's.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 30, 2015 17:03:52 GMT -6
.....but in the Waterlook/Brigadoon calendar, the year was 1102 and before Hastings. They don't count Tuesdays. Here, pick a card, any card.........Something......Oh, all right!
No clue what I was thinking, you're correct and I was very wrong. I actually do know about Hastings, which makes it worse.
That said, there was a town named Waterloo where it still is and was for seven hundred years before the battle. It may be the liquor, but I'm pretty sure that's sufficient to explain the battle being named Waterloo as it took place nearby.
Wellington is controversial, but there is certainly a number of authorities who think him a pretty good commander for various reasons, some no more likely that Waterlook. He seems pretty honest about himself and describes Waterloo as 'a near run thing,' and disagrees with an appraisal of an earlier battle in the press where the government got burned by saying it was his fault alone. Blucher is the guy who said he was pregnant by a French Grenadier before the battle, I think. So....that.
Napoleon was whiffed up as a near god by England, who'd beaten him, and his likeness in art was a very popular item for at least the rest of the century, even appearing in Sherlock Holmes. Dixon assembled some reasonable accounts about him, good and bad. I don't know myself, obviously, but I don't think it can be said Wellington was 'lucky' or incompetent. Pluses and minuses, like Napoleon. Or anyone. There are Germans, for example, who are totally perplexed at the West's adulation of Rommel, whom they consider a Nazi publicity craze. I don't know about that, either, but the fact that authorities do not agree in major ways about this stuff sort of slams the opinion that only authorities have the tools to know. The pros don't agree often enough to validate the contention. Len Deighton goes into this in Blood, Tears, and Folly, another book I recommend. He is alert to Churchill's good AND bad points, and can make the argument Wavell wasn't what current history blames him for.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 30, 2015 17:31:27 GMT -6
The town of Waterloo is found mentioned in documents as far back as 1102, before Hastings, says Wiki. Why in the world would you believe a Belgian town speaking German or French for centuries, would have an English name? Hastings battle was1066, had family there. Know nothing about town names, but fighting raged in France and Belgium against Brits, in the1200's and 1300's. I wonder if the word Waterloo has its orgins in the word Walloon Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 30, 2015 18:00:52 GMT -6
I visited Waterloo as a young buck second Lieutenant. What blew my mind was standing at La Haye Saint and looking at the locations of the Prussians. They were not on the French flank, but deep in their rear. The Prussians and Young Guard were fighting in a village that cut off the all the French Forces to the right of La Haye. The Prussian objective was the In oddly named La Belle Alliance, which would, and did, cut off the French retreat. The village whose name I can't recall is in plain sight from the battle ridge. The French soldiers would have known they were screwed. Plancenoit? The French would have kown they were screwed but it is my understanding is that the French soliders were led to believe it was Grouchy they were seeing, not the Prussians. When they realized that it was the Prussians, it added to the collaspe of the morale of the French. Beth Blucher wanted to name the battle La Belle Alliance which was the Inn Napoleon used as his headquarters but Wellington won.
|
|