1805 Sea of Glory
I have just received this game, which covers the Trafalgar Campaign, and it appears to be a possible scenario generator as well as a most interesting game in its own right. I have also just received the book The Trafalgar Campaign, hopefully that will help.
The 1805 rules need some serious attention as does the game itself. I'd be interested in comments of any other group members who have the game. I did post on the FB Naval Wargaming page but no replies yet.
I would also be interested in finding out more details on this game Brad, for the benefit of any members thinking of trying it out.
Rob.
Me too! Ships here in the desert are getting rarer and rarer!
Okay folks! Since I posted the item I have discovered some videos from Rusted Dice on YouTube.
This is the place to start: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...5+sea+of+glory
The order of watching the videos, so far I think, is as follows: 1. Nothing is certain. 2. 'Tis to glory we steer. 3. Glory is fleeting.
The other two in order (I think) are 4. Mast-head there. and 5. Final thoughts and score, although number 4 may precede number 3 I haven't got to them yet. Downloading at 1 - 2 MB per minute it takes a while and I only have a 15GB limit!
I can't help thinking this game may be able to be the model for a Mauritius Campaign. However, as the narrator says, this is a very deep and complex game so we'll have to wait and see.
This is the only GMT game whose topic I have been interested in but have taken a pass on, all due to its low solitaire suitability. It looks like a great game, but when it comes to traditional wargaming, I can only play solo. I have no qualms playing both sides, but this game seems to thrive on NOT knowing what your opponent is doing.
Brad, have you checked out any discussions on BGG? If not, here's the link: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/...1805-sea-glory
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Be sure to get the "living rules" download link in BGG or go direct to
http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTLivingRules.aspx
This is the latest set of rules with all current corrections incorporated.
I have this game, but alas have yet had the opportunity to play it. Prior to this game the author released a set of fleet/squadron action miniatures rules called "Fire As She Bears". He used to attend US miniatures conventions and run that game.Originally Posted by Iron Outlaw
Actually I am interested to know where you picked up "The Trafalgar Campaign" as I have been looking for it but the prices are astronomical! ($300+ through Amazon).
Eric, what is the exact title of the book you are seeking?
I messed up the title - I am looking to pick up Mark Adkin's "The Trafalgar Companion: The Complete Guide to History's Most Famous Sea Battle and the Life of Admiral Lord Nelson"
Eric
Great book, I have the others he has done as well on Waterloo, Gettysburg and World War 1 Western Front. Invaluable resources.
I have the Waterloo book and took copies of the map pages when I when to the battlefield in June. Turned out to be a great resource for locating troop positions on the ground.
Just had a look at this on Amazon.
The cheapest one to be had is £79.
Bit rich for me I'm afraid.
Rob.
Cool Stuff Inc. had a 'scratch and dent' section at their Gen Con booth so I scored a copy of this game for $34.00. Also picked up a copy of Field Commander Napoleon for $55.00. Would have bought more, but I really am trying to reduce the game count in my 'library'.
"It's not the towering sails, but the unseen wind that moves a ship."
–English Proverb
I hate to have to tell you guys this, but I picked up my copy of 1805, second hand in excellent condition, from a guy via Boardgame Geek. It cost me U$25.00 plus P&P!
I think I have been a tad lucky! It's not that often that I win one!!!
Well played Brad.
Rob.
By the way, Eric (and anyone else who enjoys solitaire age of sail wargaming),
I could always use more playtesters for my solitaire game, "A Glorious Chance: The Naval Struggle for Lake Ontario, 1813."
Gamers favorably compare it to 1805 Sea of Glory, for its operational focus. Some 1805 players have expressed a wish for something that offers some of the same rewards as 1805, but solitaire and with shorter setup and playing time. The added plus to my game is that -- eventually -- a Maneuver Level will let you turn your operational encounters into an endless variety of scenario setups for SGN or whatever tactical miniatures scale or ruleset you like. (The Maneuver Level is in development and internal playtesting now, but once I have a test kit made for it, I'll be looking for more playtesters for that.)
The Operational Level playtest kit is a Vassal module plus the (very clean and clear) 16 page rulebook.
To get a more detailed look at gameplay, you can read some playtesters' AARs on the game page on Boardgamegeek and on Consimworld.
Just PM me an e-mail address and I'll send you the kit.
This stuff just keeps falling into my PC.
GMT Games have some other games from the ager of sail. If you load this link you will find links to 3 other games, all age of sail.
http://www.gmtgames.com/p-427-blue-c...te-ensign.aspx This game deals with the Imperial Russian Navy.
Others cover the American wars of 1776 and 1812. Even the Japanese get a look in on one of them!
There are stacks of things that are free to download from each game to check the games out.
Cheers
Hi Gina,
I just saw this. I will PM you, accordingly.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Well, I couldn't avoid this game any longer due to the Miniature Market Summer sale this week.
Along with 1805, I picked up several other GMT titles:
Pax Baltica
Crown of Roses
Command and Colors Ancients exp. 4 - Romans
Hellenes
It turns out they're all block games.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Speaking of Field Commander: Napoleon, I played the first two campaigns and while I really like the game, it teaches you nothing about Napoleon's strategy or tactics. You could have easily called it Field Commander: Frederick the Great for the way combat in the game resolves. Also, there is just too much luck involved. Everything is decided by that D10 die. It is a really fun game, I love the quality of it. A way to improve the game is to come up with custom battlefield sheets for each campaign based on terrain the armies actually faced in those campaigns. The sheets should be at least as big as the maps, and the rules need to allow for flanking maneuvers, placing of artillery, and committing calvary at the right moment. Instead of printing one sided map boards, they should print an expanded battlefield map on the back side of the campaign maps (Not on the same map as the campaign. The battlefield map for the 1796 campaign should be printed on the back of a different campaign map so you can use both simultaneously). Napoleon was famous for moving whole armies incredible distances and showing up in a completely unexpected quarter ready to fight before his enemies could really grasp the predicament they were in. Only being allowed to move one area at a time and resolving any battles at that point was not Nappy's way. Nappy was also famous for attacking one army and defeating it before any allies could show up join with them. Time and again, even at Waterloo, this tactic was used. Nappy defeated Blucher and had him on the run. He knew Wellington would not attack without Blucher. Marshal Ney managed to completely screw up the entire battle with sheer incompetence. Nappy wasn't defeated at Waterloo, Ney was. But you cannot recreate those kind of battles in FC:N.
Ken, this is where I wish there was a comprehensive set of designer's notes. After my first game, which I enjoyed thoroughly in terms of game-playing fun, I wasn't sure why the mechanics worked as they did. There seemed to be a generic feel about it, and I thought my experience was solely due to a lack of knowledge about Napoleonic strategy and tactics on my part. Reading your comments has me thinking otherwise.
I like the idea of the double-sided map boards.
For those wanting a fun game with good component quality - though I don't understand the non-mounted battle map - this is a good choice.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Waterloo was a stirling example of the way Napoleon won battle after battle. The coalition armies Napoleon fought were really predictable. If, say, the English army planned to defeat Napoleon with the combined forces of Prussia, Napoleon would send a smaller force against the British and pin them down without doing a full frontal battle. All he had to do was stall the advancing British long enough so that he could attack the Prussians before they merged with the British. This is exactly what happened at Waterloo. Napoleon split his 300,000 plus men (green troops untested in battle). He put Ney in charge of the left flank facing Wellington. He then took the right flank and marched, met, and defeated Blucher. He put Marshal Grouchy in charge of chasing Blucher's rearguard and making sure the Prussians didn't cut through the woods and join the Brittish. Ney, in one of the stupidest moves any general has ever done, actually countermanded Napoleon's order to route the Prussians and ordered Grouchy to join him at Waterloo. Napoleon was furious. He had half the force allied against him totally defeated. Ney then made another blunder that cost him his cavalry. He attacked Wellington's center, thinking that the defensive squares of British troops were falling apart. They weren't and Ney squandered his greatest asset by making at least 12 charges against Wellington's defensive squares. Between each square were the cannons. Every time the french cavalry wheeled and attached, the artillery crews would run and hide within the squares. After the cavalry were repulsed, those crews would leave the squares and man their cannons again. The cavalry was supposed to spike the cannon as they over ran them but they didn't. There is a famous episode where Ney is seen pounding on a cannon with the flat of his sword and yelling at his men to spike them. By the time Napoleon had taken over the center the battle was lost.
You could say that Napoleon lost at Waterloo because he simply could not be two places at once. Marshall Nay was an incredibly brave and able cavalry commander, but his incompetence at Waterloo and the idiotic actions of Grouchy sealed Napoleons fate before he could do anything about it. The strategy Napoleon used was sound. The execution of the tactics was abominable. You can read account after account saying that Ney really didn't screw up at Waterloo, and that Napoleon blamed everybody but himself for the defeat. You can find all kinds of apologetics about Grouchy, too. But the tactics were the same used at Austerlitz and Borodino, battle proven tactics that would have worked if Napoleon's Marshalls had not screwed up royally.
Nice summery Ken.
Of course, the other thing Napoleon was missing at Waterloo was his Chief of Staff.
The weather precluded him making any profit from his speed of march, having humbugged Wellington in the first place, and then as you say the Prussians slipped the net and tied up the Young Guard for most of the afternoon until Blucher could bring the rest of his Army to Wellington's support in the early evening.
It was as Wellington remarked, a close run thing.
Rob.
What is amazing is that Wellington gets all the credit for the victory. He was the most overly cautious commander of troops ever, and everybody knew it. It literally took him 5 years to cross Spain, a country he was allied with that hated the French. Ney knew how cautious he was, Grouchy knew it, Blucher knew it. Nappy knew it. He never attacked without overwhelming odds and wouldn't have done anything but wait or retreat if Blucher had never showed up. Ney's order to Grouchy literally took 30,000 troops out of the battle completely to devastating effect. Nappy was missing more than Berthier, he was missing Davout, who was left to hold Paris, and Augereau in Lyons.
This is of course also very true Ken. Plus apart from his Old Guard, the cream of his army was buried in Russia.
Rob.
I think you may be confusing Napoleon's campaign strategy of the central position with what happened once the battle was joined, or actually what happened in the days prior to Waterloo. Let me just address a couple of points:
1. Napoleon's army was closer to 150,000 men and they were not green, rather they were in large part veteran troops who had seen combat previously. It was Wellington who had the high proportion of untested newly raised green troops, militia if you will, and to some extent the Prussian also relied on militia.
2. Part of what you describe actually happened on June 16th at the battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny. Once Napoleon knew that the Prussians were going to fight a battle in an advanced position he planned to attack them and use the left wing under Marshall Ney (who just took command the night before) to capture a critical crossroad (Quatre Bras) and pin the British. Napoleon could then take I Corps from Ney's wing and fall on the flank of the Prussian army trapping and destroying it. Although that didn't happen and Ney failed to capture the crossroads - thanks to the initiative of several Dutch commanders- Napoleon did put a heavy defeat on the Prussians and almost captured Blucher. What Napoleon didn't count on was Blucher's tenacity and utter hatred for him which drove him to keep his promise to reinforce Wellington on the 18th.
3. Ney never gave Grouchy orders they were essentially equals. Perhaps you are thinking of Quatre Bras on June 16th when I Corps under D'Erlon, part of Ney's Left Wing command, received orders from Napoleon to march on the Prussian flank and Ney being hard pressed by Wellington ordered him to return. This was in part the fault of, as Rob noted, Napoleon's chief of staff Soult in the way he wrote and transmitted orders. He really could have used Berthier on this occasion.
4. You are correct that the blunder Ney is most known for was the famous mass cavalry charges. What Ney thought was a withdrawal of the Allied line was Wellington pulling back some units from the crest of the ridge to shelter from artillery. Consequently he started the charges as you noted. There are a number of theories why all the cavalry including the Guard was sucked into this, but Ney started with just one division. At one point Napoleon could have put a stop to it but decided that the die was cast and to reinforce the charges. The famous account of the gunners running back to man the guns is from Captain Mercer, who was actually the exception as many other batteries did not run back as the French retreated (that myth is from the movie I believe).
Perhaps the biggest error in this episode was the failure to include artillery in the attack and when a horse battery was brought up the British 27th Rgt pretty much ceased to exist (they fell in square). Most of the batteries had been consolidated in the grand battery and Napoleon would not authorize guns to be taken from that, the guard horse batteries being an example.
Napoleon's plan of attack at Waterloo was always a frontal assault following an artillery barrage, there was no flanking maneuver. The pinning maneuver was the diversionary attack on the Hougumont farm, which became a full fledged battle itself (Thanks to brother Jerome). The attacking infantry formation was supported by cavalry and actually was initially successful because the novel formation used was good against the Allied infantry but they could not form square effectively. You have to give credit to Wellington and Uxbridge his cavalry commander for the timely heavy brigade charges that smashed the French infantry.
But the bottom line is that the French could have still won even after the cavalry charges but for the Prussians arriving on the battlefield. He had to use his reserves, VI Corps and the half of the Guard to hold them off. This is why you have a number of authors, Hofschroer being one or them, who advocate that the Prussian arrival won the day (rather than the stoic British infantry).
BTW: Ney was not a cavalry commander he had independent army and corps commands since 1805. Grouchy on the other hand was always a cavalry commander and the pursuit of the Prussians after Ligny was his first independent wing/army command. Not being an apologist, because it was a lackluster pursuit and he didn't listen to his corps commander when they wanted to march to the sound of the guns. His orders were to maintain "contact" but he did not realize it was only a small rearguard he was facing at Wavre.
For a good account of Waterloo that looks at the French tactics and decisions from a neutral perspective I would recommend reading Andrew Field's "Waterloo from the French Perspective" and for an analyses on the actions on June 16th; "Prelude to Waterloo Quatre Bras The French Perspective". He also discussed why the French army fell apart and was so utterly routed on the day.
http://www.amazon.com/Waterloo-Frenc.../dp/1781590435
2.99 for the e-book.
Lastly I should say that the biggest apologist was Napoleon himself, who basically condemned the actions of some of his Generals in his memoirs. Not sayin they were blameless but you know where the buck stops. Napoleon was also a good PR man!
There has been so much crap written about Napoleon that it's really hard for laymen such as myself to figure out what is right or wrong about him. As far as histories go, I go for the earliest ones, written a decade or two after Waterloo. The others that come after, I consider "revisionist". For every book making a new revelation about Napoleon or his marshals I simply put them all in one category. Someone is always uncovering sensational letters from Ney's aide de camp to his mistress saying that Nay was on morphine when he charged the British center at Waterloo. I tend to dismiss them for original first hand reports and summaries by people who were actually there. Even stories about Napoleon's horse at Waterloo are many and varied. Everybody on earth who studies Napoleon knows that his horse was named Marengo, after the famous battle. Everybody also knows that Marengo was also the touchstone of Napoleon's career. For Nappy, he thought of everything in terms of pre or post Marengo. Now read this review of a book that says Marengo, the horse, was a complete myth:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/revie..._hamilton.html
no footnotes, no references, just "authoritative bull****". If it sounds reasonable, then it must be true.
Last edited by Kentop; 08-21-2015 at 17:26.
Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Half of the things you cite are contradicted by the other half you don't cite. Quatre Bras was not a separate battle. It was the same action. It is only historians nitpicking every single dispatch, order, movement of every corps, division, and brigade that has made one battle into three or four (depending on who is defining the word "battle".) Of course Napoleon blamed his marshals. Wellington was famous for always putting the blame on his subordinates. The fact is, you were not there, neither was any writer scouring the documents, memos, tall tales, and outright fabrications of the event. Do you really think that today's "history" of events, with all the forensic and scientific knowledge we know today, is better than the first hand accounts ? I would believe Napoleon's own words before I believe some historian 100 years later contradicting him. Napoleon was not delusional. Even when his own marshals (Ney, being the chief spokesman) confronted him at Fontainebleau, he knew he had to abdicate. So you put absolutely no weight behind Napoleon's own words but you swear by the assessment of some historian decades later?
By the way, there was no such thing as equals among Marshals of the Empire..
Last edited by Kentop; 08-21-2015 at 19:58.
I have seen similar discrepancies, and often 180-degree contrary opinions, when studying philosophical and theological texts, scientific topics, or business research on various topics. I have read back-to-back articles that made me wonder what, if anything I was reading, was credible. As much as I enjoy reading history and research studies, I cannot help but wonder, at least a little, if I am wasting my time. I recognize I cannot become too cynical, but some days it is hard not to be. I am currently researching organizational trust in the leader-follower dyad. I have read hundreds of articles and many books on the topic, and in the end, it is hard not to go with what has intuitive appeal, the empirical research often being at odds with other studies. At least with my research on trust, I have my own experience; with history, as Ken points out, we weren't there.
Now, as to the problems associated with eyewitness accounts ....
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Was that really necessary?
In some cases yes.Do you really think that today's "history" of events, with all the forensic and scientific knowledge we know today, is better than the first hand accounts ?
I was involved in an investigation a few years ago into a particular incident. I won't go into details but I spoke at length with two trained observers who were standing within 10 feet of each other during the events of the day. Their recollections of events were almost completely different (the only common feature was that their ship sank and they both ended up in the water). And the report from a friendly vessel travelling in company was different again. Our tame psychologist had a field day discussing that one!Now, as to the problems associated with eyewitness accounts ....
Yes Ken, but from all the Blah, blah, look just how many interesting facets of the same incident have emerged, and we are only scratching the surface of the battle.
I never mentioned piles honest.
Rob.
I was trying to explain, unsuccessfully I believe, to a friend that there is no such thing as only-the-facts news. From what is noticed to the words used to report, everything runs through a filter of some sort; that does not mean intentional misleading or propagandizing.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
No it wasn't necessary. I apologize.
Waterloo has been talked to death. You could spend your whole life studying just that one battle. There must be hundreds of books and thousands of articles on the subject, with new ones coming out every year, each with their own angle or twist on the story. For lay persons such as myself, I have to limit my sources and "boil down" the actions and their meanings and results of that fateful battle. I have to generalize the overall condition of each army's make up and say that the French army at Waterloo was not the well tuned fighting machine it had been. It was certainly not La Grande Armee. But I can find many quotes saying that the army commanded by Napoleon at Waterloo was one of the finest he ever commanded. Well, it can't be both. Napoleon himself wrote three different accounts of the battle, so the "controversy" over what actually happened starts with him. Everybody has an angle on it. Nobody agrees.
I firmly believe such battles create discord in all the histories written about them. I do not feel its wise to say anything is 'set in stone'. We simply do not have all the facts. Everyone writes with their own agenda about battles, participants included. This is a fact of life, just like in witness statements about crime. I don't necessarily think people deliberately aim to mislead - they just put down what they think they remember.
I think anyone who says they totally understand everything about a battle from even recent history is on very shaky ground!
I have struggled with this both professionally and recreationally. No sooner does someone offer something in the academy, then folks start pounding. With the proliferation of information, no one can be up on everything, nor can one address every viewpoint, but people act like it should be done. Similarly, when looking up reviews on military history books on amazon, I see people taking authors to task because the author didn't include a given personality or speak about a given event while discussing a major battle. As I mentioned before, there are times I want to say, "Why bother?" In the end, I enjoy reading military history, recognize I am not an expert, walk away from folks who need to be right, and enjoy the good things in life.
That's interesting, telling, and cautioning.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Those three accounts are what 90% of histories about Waterloo are based on. Nappy's versions are, of course, pro-Napoleon, jingoistic affairs, which is to be expected, but they pretty much square with Wellington's and Blucher's accounts. So you cannot go too far wrong using Nappys versions. Nappy's first version was his official report to the nation and started the day after the battle and finished about a week later. It was a nice piece of propaganda but he kept the events pretty much straight. Nappy was known for twisting the truth in his official reports or bulletins as the French called them. There was a popular phrase to "lie like a bulletin", which was coined with Nappy in mind. The phrase showed up right after Nappy's official report on the battle of Marengo which contained some howlers. Nappy's second account was written down in St Helena for the express purpose of putting blame where he thought it should go, on his Marshals and generals. The second account is much more detailed and matches well with other nations accounts of what happened and when. His third account was published in 1820 anonymously and it is written in the third person, but everybody agreed that it was Nappy's work. In it, he goes into depth about his own actions and decisions during the battle. He ends it with 9 observations about critical moments in the battles and the decisions and their consequences. All in all, Nappy did a good job on all three reports. His account is pretty authoritative. Yes, he got some stuff wrong, but heck, the fact that he mostly agrees with everyone else who was there makes his accounts good enough for me.
Let's not get started on how the American Civil War as taught in schools is still just U.S. Grant's '68 election campaign....
Nappy filed three official reports on Marengo each one more ridiculous that the previous. He had to show France that he was the only guy who could save France and that his victory at Marengo was the most important victory of the entire campaign. Lies, all lies. He had no reason to lie about what happened at Waterloo and it shows in his factual accounting of it in his reports.
Nobody uses American history school textbooks as a resource. They are less than useless.
Napoleon's 1815 army was probably not his finest as that honour would fall to the army of 1805, drilled in peace time for 2 years, confident, superbly equipped and cohesive from top to bottom.
The army of 1815 was composed of many veterans, the soldiers fought the battle of Waterloo well from 11am till the collapse at 7-730. However, the leadership was uneven at best, as exampled by Ney's actions, Jeromes failure to follow his orders wrt to Hougomont, Napoleon's failure to intervene when blunders were being made etc. There was significant mistrust within the army after the defection of 4th Corps General Bourmont and his staff prior to the Battle of Ligny. Having brought together an army composed of some officers who had rallied to Louis after the first abdication and others who had refused to serve the king, the mistrust within the officer coprs and expecially from the rank and file towards them was always under the surface. Some of this mistrust can be traced back to Marmont's treason in 1814 and the flight of the many of the superior officers at the same time to protect their privileged positions under the coming regime.
Ken is right in that more has been written on waterloo than any other battle, Ive just finished a very interesting book, "forensic" in nature covering the battles last hour or so and putting forward the case that Grenadier Guards, who received the "Grenadier" honorarium because of their supposed action in defeating the Old Guard in the battle's final stages, did not in fact doing anything of the sort and merely pushed back one Bn of the the Guard, the damage being done instead by the 52nd Light infantry. The author is scathing of wellington...it will never stop, the battle is too significant as the ending of one era and the beginning of another of european nationalism.
When reading eyewitness reports from old battles it's not only the "how do you remember what happened" as with the example David mentioned, but also what motivations do that person have to write the description. What was the practice of the time, of the culture, of the person? What does he have to win / loose from a correct or "enhanced" version of the events? Would that person admit failure even to himself? How big is his ego?
I haven't studied Waterloo more than any other wargamer but I have studied some of the battles of the Great Northern War and Tsar Peter the Great lied copiously in all his descriptions of battles. The descriptions are easily refuted out of just looking at a detailed map of the battle or looking at battlefield finds or even troop numbers and the Swedish church books recording all births in Sweden. Tsar Peter gave Swedish army numbers way over what the army at Poltava even were at full strength and several regiments were below half strength. I would trust later accounts and the more distant in time and the more distant in modern politics the better. Modern Russian historians are "correcting" history due to politics (Carolus Rex (or Karl XII) fought with Mazepa and Ukrainians against Tsar Peter).
The year was 1796, Napoleon still had his entire career ahead of him, when MY STUPID DOG ATE AN ENTIRE FRENCH GARRISON that accidentally fell off the table edge before I noticed it was gone.
The field of battle
My 16 year old cocker spaniel, Jane, resting comfortably after devouring the french garrison.
So funny Ken.
It's the way you tell them.
What might that young General have become had not the fickle hand of fate stepped in?
Rob.
It's a rare and special pup indeed that gets to see a 16th birthday, so I'm sure this a bit of mischief can eventually be forgiven.
At least we can now be sure that her loyalties are with Nelson and the good old Royal Navy!
I once had a black cocker spaniel who, as a puppy, pulled A Gleam of Bayonets off a bookshelf and left the box looking like it had been riddled with canister at the actual Battle of Antietam.
Cats seem to get a lot of blame online for spoiling wargame sessions in progress. But they usually just mess up the counter stacks. Give a dog a wargame, and whole regiments may disappear for good!
Okay, thanks for that response, very helpful. I thought I was pointing out in a nice way that some of what you posted was not correct. By that I mean even using primary sources like dispatches, reports, diaries etc. I have been studying the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleonic history for over 30 years and spent the time and money to fly over this summer for the anniversary. Just so you have an idea why my post may have seemed overly long or condescending, which I did not intend. You obviously have an axe to grind with the subject, fair enough. I don't believe any of the facts I posted about the battle are controversial let alone revisionist.
The fact of the matter is many accounts are driven by an underlying agenda, whether a contemporary diary or memoir or a recent book claiming new evidence or written from a different perspective. As someone studying history especially something so prolifically written about as Waterloo for example, one must cast a critical eye on this type of work. However it does not mean that there is no value in a modern thesis. So a prime example of the recent "revisionism" as you call it, is the rehabilitation of the Dutch-Belgian and German troops served in the Allied army, which were given short shrift by the original British accounts. So this was brought about by a number of authors, who researched using national archives in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Some of these works are strictly limited to the actions of those troops based on reports from the commanding and junior officers. One of the best was a three part series on the Dutch-Belgian participation by an amateur Dutch historian, Erwin Mulwijk. I would not call that revisionist by any stretch. The apologists began right after the battle. It is the same blame game that happens today when plans go awry and it is often dependent on suspect motivations of the individuals pointing the fingers. You can have modern authors on a historical subject who are divorced from these prejudices. So to suggest that modern historians are all revisionists or Ney's apologists is ludicrous.
I would have to say that you are the only person I have ever heard state that Quatre Bras was the same battle. As I was trying to nicely point out that battle was two(2) days prior to the battle of Waterloo. The battlefield is a 15-20 minute drive by car from the Waterloo battlefield and the Ligny battlefield is further. There was an intervening day of maneuvering between the battles on June 17th. I am sure you'll find a clear account of the maneuvers from June 14th to June 18th and of the four (4) different battles and numbers of smaller actions that occurred during the campaign in Napoleon's memoirs and dispatches which you have cited as the most reliable source.
I am curious as to your comment about contradictions in my post. Perhaps you'll give me an example of something that I didn't post that would contradict something I posted?
BTW - I agree on the bit about the Marshals. My point was that both of them held the same level of command and Grouchy not involved in the exchange you cited.
It's not you, Eric. It's me. I apologize for my rudeness. As for who is correct and who is wrong, You are correct and I am wrong...but not about Quatre Bras. To me, it was a different action of the same battle. At Quatre Bras, Wellington won the ground, but had to retreat because the Prussians were being defeated and pushed back on his left. That set up Waterloo two days later. Waterloo happened where it did because Quatre Bras was where it was. You can't separate the two, even though the actions took place two days apart. By the way, the battle of Leipzig lasted three days with different actions against different armies, but it's all one battle. As far as the other errors I made in my response, I was ranting, it was late, I was well lubricated. You were right to correct my stupider statements. As far as contradictions go, Waterloo is probably the most controversial battles in history, simply because it has become a "he said, she said" thing. One contradiction is your statement about "Napoleon had always planned a full frontal assault at Waterloo. Napoleon didn't plan Waterloo, he reacted to it after he arrived, and his reaction was not so good. Watching Ney charge Wellingtons center, he said, "Ney is an hour too early". It went downhill from there. But, please, correct me when I am wrong. I value your opinion immensely.
Thank you Ken. Sounds like we may be arguing semantics anyway.
As long as you agree that the Dutch saved Wellington's bacon at Quatre Bras I don't care what you call it!!(kidding).
I will say you are right about the planning - Wellington choose the ground and Napoleon had to react once he arrived. I walked the entire French right flank up to the Allied line and to say it wasn't good for maneuvering is an understatement! And on the other side Hougumont and Braine l'alleud...
I was thinking about your theory that Quatre Bras and Waterloo is actually the same action to use your term. Since the OP was about a board game I recalled I have several of the Clash of Arms Napoleonic titles including "La Bataille des Quatre Bras" and "Napoleon's Last Battles" along with numerous miniatures rules and scenarios specifically relating to the Battle of Quatre Bras alone.
I have committed the error of making assumptions without hearing your side of the argument! So having said that will you be so kind as to provide the basis for your theory that Quatre Bras was the same action as Waterloo rather than a separate battle? Given your opinion on QB, what is your opinion of the Battle of Ligny or Wavre?
Thank you
Napoleon's own bulletins list them as separate battles...aimed at the same goal, to insinuate the French army between Wellington and Blucher, push Wellington back towards the coast along his line of supply, and Blucher east along his own supply lines so that he could defeat each in turn. It almost worked. any book about Waterloo has to include those battles, as well as Wavre, The "separate" battle of Waterloo doesn't make any sense without them. I have read many accounts of the battles, and is seems that over time, and over analysis, historians split the entire action into separate manageable bites where no such separation exists. It was all one continuous battle with opponents adjusting their positions. Surely you can see that? Nowadays, historians call it the Waterloo Campaign, as if the battles leading up to the final fight were separate things altogether. They weren't. The definition of what a "battle" is has changed over time, especially for modern warfare. Just look at the Battle of Kursk. If Kursk is a single battle, so is Waterloo.
Annnnnnd another thing, There was only one Army of the North, the Left flank attacked the Anglo/Dutch force, and the Right flank attacked the Prussians. I could see calling them separate battles if it were two different French armies and they had separate strategies and goals. But all the actions during that time had the same mission to accomplish. Thats why it was one big battle lasting a few days. There is no reason to make the different actions into separate battles. It would be like calling the actions of Nappys left flank at Austerlitz by a different battle name than his right flank.
Last edited by Kentop; 08-26-2015 at 14:05.
You have an interesting point of view. I see where you are coming from, but I can’t agree with it, as there are still four separate major actions by the standard definition of the term(s).* You are trying to impose a modern definition on 19th century history. If you had said that the Battle of Quatre Bras influenced the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo two days later and in turn the outcome of the campaign, then I’d agree with you. That I believe is the conventional wisdom with regard to the 100 days campaign. It would also conform to naming conventions in the Napoleonic wars and horse and musket warfare in general. The fact, as you admit, that Napoleon and other leaders reported a separate battle proves my point. I think you’ll find is the case for all the contemporaneous sources. Now you are saying that because the definition of “battle” has changed, Quatre Bras and Ligny are now to be considered part of the Battle of Waterloo as it is the same “action”. Many historians call it the 100 Days Campaign (The museum on the battlefield does this) and some others I agree reference the Waterloo Campaign. However I would point out that a campaign is made up of individual actions be they skirmishes, clashes or battles.
I might agree that the definition of a what a battle is or consists of, has evolved, but only in the context of modern warfare where a battle might involve many separate operations over a large battlespace and over a long period of time. (See: “Understanding war: History and Theory of combat” Dupuy, Trevor) Using a battle like Kursk, involving 20th century mechanized warfare, is comparing apples and oranges. While there were multi-day battles in the Napoleonic wars, Leipzig, Aspern-Essling, Wagram, for example, they all had one thing in common, they were fought over the same battlefield. Once one side quit the field the battle was over and the victorious force pursued or advanced until the next battle (The Italian campaign in 1796 is a good example of this).
Annnnnd you are confusing battlefield tactics with operational strategy which is what Napoleon excelled at among many other things. He counted on individual army corps to fight independently. Ever hear of Auerstedt? Marshal Davout's I Corps fought the main part of the Prussian Army by itself. According to your "One Army One Battle" view you are depriving the French of Napoleon’s last victory! The Battle of Ligny! sacre bleu!Napoleon's strategic maneuvers allowed him to have an opportunity to smash the Prussians whilst pinning the arriving Allied army down with a smaller force, ie; the left wing. It simply does not logically follow that you cannot name a separate battle because your whole army was not there. Waterloo does overshadow the rest because of the decisiveness, but had Napoleon’s plans on June 16th succeeded, there may well not have been a Waterloo at all. I think that is a good reason to define those actions as distinct from the final battle on the 18th. Your citation of Austerlitz is misplaced as that was a single battle fought on the same battlefield in one day, rather than multiple actions separated by location and time.
Of course most of the multitude of books on Waterloo will have a chapter about the campaign and actions leading up to the battle, which is necessary to place it in context. I’ll wager that most also refer to separate battles being fought on June 16th. Adkin’s “Waterloo Companion” is an example of this. First chapter details with Napoleon’s return from Elba and the political situation. The second chapter covers the campaign leading up to Waterloo including the battles on the 16th. Next he lays out the orders of battle, discusses tactics and then covers the sequence of events on June 18th. In the narrative he does not start the battle timeline on June 16, but on the 18th. There are also a number of volumes on the campaign as a whole, on the battles of the 16th or on Quatre Bras itself treating it as a separate action. I’ll give you that Quatre Bras is sometimes viewed as a more minor encounter or action, especially by the French since the Emperor was at Ligny defeating the Prussians. However I have yet to see a history of the campaign that combines the action(s) on the 16th as part of the battle on the 18th. If you know of one please let me know.
I certainly won't convince you to change your position, but I would suggest that your view is an outlier in the study of military history. I would recommend you pick up a classic, and many would say basic tome on Napoleon's strategy, David Chandler's "Campaign's of Napoleon".
*See "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, Actions and losses in Personnel, Colors, Standards and Artillery, 1792-1815" Smith, Digby, Greenhill 1998. All are listed as separate battles.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks