More Waterloo

As advertised at reference 1, I have now finished the story teller's version at reference 2. And Max Hastings notwithstanding, I think Cornwell did a pretty good job of writing this nicely produced book. Bit of a mystery why it had been marked down so much.

One up side was that he did a good job of conveying a sense of the topography of the battlefield. One down side was that he was a bit hot on the glory side of things, while White-Spunner, perhaps as a former soldier, was better on the price of glory.

So regarding topography, I learned that there was a tricky if small river between Wavre and Mont St. Jean, La Lasne, at which it would have been easy enough to hold Blücher up, with fatal results for the allies, had the French thought so to do. Plus I continue to wonder how Blücher managed to be a fighting general into his seventies. He must have been a lot stronger, both mentally and physically, than I am.

Cornwall also provides more context for the battle, including the uncertain allegiance of the French speakers of the Netherlands, the inhabitants of what is now Wallonia, many of whom regretted the passing of Napoleon. He reminds us that while Wellington could be generous after the battle, our islands never having been invaded and trashed by the French, the Germans were not so forgiving and were all for shooting him. At the very least, blowing up the Pont d'Iéna in Paris - with Wellington not even allowing them this satisfaction.

Cornwall also digs up some statistics from somewhere which tell us that only a very small percentage of the millions of shells, cannon balls and bullets that were fired found their mark. Also that shrapnel was named for the Mr. Shrapnel that invented the stuff.

Quite a lot on how easily Napoleon might have won, or failing that, pulled away to fight another day, rather than fight on to destruction. He might, for example, have been more hands-on, in the way of Wellington, rather than delegating so much to Ney. The Ney who did not have enough friends in Paris, so got shot, while his colleague Soult went on to have an amicable meeting with Wellington in the margins of Queen Victoria's coronation in 1838.

Quite a lot on the Richmond ball, which White-Spunner talks down, almost a non-event.

Quite a lot on the game of scissors, paper and stone - which I thought not a bad analogy for the manoeuvring of infantry, cavalry and artillery for advantage. With heavy penalties for mistakes.

Cornwall rated the battlefield care of the French wounded, while White-Spunner talks of the high survival rate of those who made it back to allied base hospitals. And I was struck by the high mortality rate among the ensigns holding up their unit's colours, and by their often being as young as fifteen. According to Cornwall, soldiers of the period had an almost mystical regard for their colours, with their loss being a disgrace worse than death. I also learned that the original role of colour sergeants was to provide a guard for said ensigns and colours. Presumably chosen from among large burly men who could hack down most comers.

Reading of the loss of La Haye Sainte towards the end of the battle, I was reminded of having read somewhere that one allied unit at Waterloo, at or above La Haye Sainte, used an unusual calibre of ammunition, which the commanding generals forget about, with the result that they ran out of ammunition at an awkward moment. But now, although the troops holding La Haye Sainte did indeed run out of ammunition, I can find no reference at all to the unusual ammunition, even with the combined forces of books, Bing and Google. Which all goes to show how easy it is to lose one's grip on the facts if one does not write down chapter, verse and reference when one has the chance.

PS: quite by chance, I read yesterday that Lord Uxbridge, the second in command at Waterloo, got into a bit of a pickle at the coronation of 1821 at which he was Lord High Steward, charged with riding into the coronation banquet and then dismounting to do his business (whatever that was) with the new king. Unfortunately, he used one false leg for riding and another for walking, but forgot to bring the latter with him, which meant he was in trouble when he dismounted in front of said new king. Things are managed so much better nowadays.

Reference 1: http://psmv3.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/waterloo.html.

Reference 2: Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies and Three Battles - Bernard Cornwell - 2014.