MovieChat Forums > Waterloo (1970) Discussion > Who Won Waterloo ? The Dutch !

Who Won Waterloo ? The Dutch !

posted 17 years ago by lambrettaguy200
29 replies | jump to latest

I am Scottish and I always believed that victory at Waterloo was a joint effort between Wellington's multi-national army, who stood their ground against numerous powerful assaults by a larger enemy, while surviving and inflicting many casualties, and the power-punch of the Prussians who arrived at the right time and started the sweep of Napoleon's army, with Wellington's battered army joining in the big push.

However, years ago a Dutch friend of mine confidently informed me that the Battle of Waterloo was won by Crown Prince William of Orange, the Dutch commander at the battle. According to my Dutch friend, it was William, not Wellington who ran the battle, commanded the allies and who issued the commands which resulted in victory over Napoleon. Just look at the huge Dutch lion monument at the battle-site ! That proves the Dutch won the battle ! That's what he got taught at Dutch school.

Funny enough, I was always led to believe that William was a dangerous idiot who interfered in the battle, unknown to Wellington, and recklessly caused the unnecessary deaths of many KGL troops among others. It also was rumoured that his wounding was a fragging. (The novel "Sharpe's Waterloo" made that a storyline too with the Rifle Brigade doing the fragging)

Put me out of my misery - Did the Dutch win Waterloo like my Cloggie friend said ?

You wanna f * * k with me? Okay. Say hello to my little friend! (Tony Montana)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] syntinen 17 years ago

That said, poor Slender Billy wasn't as bad as some careless historians have made him out to be; he was probably as competent as you could reasonably expect of a royal commander. He has been given the blame for several mistakes made by others - e.g. the order to the KGL to advance in column was the bright idea of Von Alten, the hugely experienced ex-commander of the Peninsular Light Division, who should have known better.

The "rumour that his wounding was a fragging" originated with Cornwell, as far as I can tell. "Sharpe's Waterloo" is full of highly-dubious stuff like that.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

1) No the Dutch didn't win it, although they did play their part.

2) Silly Billy was most certainly not in charge, the chain of command went Wellington then Uxbridge.

3) What won Waterloo was: Wellingtons expertise at picking defensive ground, the discipline of the thin red line and sheer Prussian determination.

I would tell your friend to pick up a history book because I'm willing to bet that even a Dutch one doesn't have the Dutch and Silly Billy winning the day.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

Please stop calling him "Silly Billy", which nobody ever called him till Bernard Cornwell wrote a crappy inaccurate novel about the battle. His nickname was "Slender Billy".

In 1815 if you had mentioned "Silly Billy" in the context of north-west European royalty, people would have assumed you were talking about George III's cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, whose nickname it was.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

It all depends on which historian tells the tale of course, but I can call him whatever I want, I choose to call him Silly Billy.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

Of course you *can* call him whatever you want; the internet's a free country. Come to that, I can call you Silly Zen0x. But I very much doubt if you can name a single historian who calls the Prince of Orange Silly Billy.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

You can call me whatever you want, but as no one ever refers to me as Silly Zen0x you would be on your own.

It all depends on whose account of history you read whether Silly Billy was the blue blooded idiot that some make him out to be. The fact is we know that the
Hanoverian Lüneberg Battalion were cut to pieces due to his absurd orders, and it is suggested that that wasn't the only monumental mistake he made. On the other hand, I believe Wellington himself didn't think he was a bad soldier, just an inexperienced one.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

The fact is we know that the Hanoverian Lüneberg Battalion were cut to pieces due to his absurd orders

We know no such thing. That order was not given by the Prince, but by the divisional commander, Karl von Alten; all the Prince did was confirm the order when Colonel Ompteda queried it. Considering that von Alten was his most experienced and distinguished officer, who had commanded the Light Division in the Spanish Peninsula, it would be quite unreasonable to blame the Prince for not having overridden Alten's orders. He knew perfectly well that he wasn't an experienced leader, and was expected to take the advice of the men around him who were. Unfortunately von Alten, like Napoleon, was evidently having an off-day.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

I am referring to the Hanoverian Lüneberg Battalion who were ordered to reinforce La Haye Sainte by Silly Billy. I did check and it appears at least according to Wikipedia that Lieutenant-General Count Sir Karl von Alten was in charge of the 3rd Division. However, every source I have found attributes this event solely to him not Alten. When I looked this all up years ago I remember there being at least 3 different mistakes which were directly attributed to Silly Billy. For example when he apparently ordered the 69th Foot into line whilst in Quatre Bras, who were then promptly dispatched by French Calvary. I will admit I have read SOME accounts which stipulate that two of the three major errors weren't all his fault, but I would also point out that in my reading he apparently stated to make other mistakes which were cut short by his untimely exit from the field.

Just from a quick Internet search I found this:

Waterloo 1815 – The birth of modern Europe by Geoffrey Wootten

Pack ordered the 69th to form square before moving farther along his brigade. The Prince of Orange, however, not under-standing what was happening, found the 69th in the act of forming square. Being perhaps somewhat piqued that an officer from another corps was messing about with 'his' battalion, he ordered them back into line again. There were protests. The Prince insisted. And it was while the infantry were in the middle of this manoeuvre that Kellerman's cuirassiers, now emerging past the leading British squares, fell upon them from the flank. For the 2/69th, it was too late to reform into square. Two companies only were able to turn to face the onslaught before they were isolated from the main body and hacked down to a man.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

Wootten, like the earlier writers that he cribbed his account from (nobody does original research for an Osprey “Campaign” book – the fee isn’t high enough), is wrong. People started to assert that the 69th’s misfortune was the Prince’s fault fairly soon after the battle; but Captain Pigot of the 69th stated in one of the “Siborne letters” that the order not to form square was given by Major Lindsay of the regiment. “Poor man to the day of his death he regretted having done so, but at the time he did it for the best”. Which seems conclusive.

Similarly, while the blame for the order to Ompteda’s battalion is often laid on the Prince, the battalion’s official journal and the memoir of Ompteda by his nephew (who was present) and North Ludlow Beamish, author of The History of the King’s German Legion (published 1837, when there were still KGL men alive to tell their story), all state that the order to attack in line was Alten’s and that the Prince only backed him up. This evidence was good enough for great historians of the subject such as Christopher Hibbert and Elizabeth Longford.

I think one reason why the Prince got so much of the blame for whatever went wrong in his vicinity is that the British Army and the British public weren’t accustomed to royal princes holding battlefield command, and tended to assume their utter incompetence as a given. Another sufferer from this attitude was Frederick Duke of York, who was sent to command the British forces in the Low Countries in 1793 hindered by incompetent regimental officers, a total absence of logistical support, and strict orders never to do anything except as advised by a gaggle of timid, elderly and inexperienced generals who had been sent to “mind” him. When the campaign foundered dismally, it was assumed by everyone to be all the Duke’s fault, and an old rhyme, “The King of France went up the hill with forty thousand men” was altered specially for his benefit. He was never allowed on active service again. But he turned out to be an innovative, hard-working and highly effective military administrator, and might well have turned out to be a perfectly competent field commander for all anybody knows.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

First of all while I might be inclined to take your information at face value, I'm afraid without sources I can look at I'm going to have to go by the vast majority of information out there. Secondly this information points the finger at Silly Billy for at least 3 different events, and while I might concede that some of those events could be attributed to others, I very much doubt the man was blameless.

As for Wooten's efforts I wasn't claiming it as definitive evidence, however, I was pointing out how easy it was to obtain information regarding Silly Billy's involvement in Waterloo. That aside Wootten's book is actually fairly current contrary to your previous statements.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

As for Wooten's efforts I wasn't claiming it as definitive evidence, however, I was pointing out how easy it was to obtain information regarding Silly Billy's involvement in Waterloo.

I know you weren't claiming it as definitive. What I was pointing out is how many unreliable books there are out there, and how unwise it is to believe stories simply because they are often repeated in print. Once a statement about a historical event has been repeated often enough, it'll never quite be killed however provably false it is, because so many people say "Oh, but I read it in a book! Lots of books in fact! It must be true!"

That aside Wootten's book is actually fairly current contrary to your previous statements.

I never said it wasn't current! What I said was that it's just a quick cut-and-paste job taken from whatever earlier writers the author had easy access to, because that's what Osprey Campaign books are. (A friend of mine was asked to write one, and turned the offer down because the fee was too small to pay for the time it would have taken to do even a thorough checking of all the sources for the campaign, never mind any original research. To do a decent job he would have had to take a few months out to do the research at his own expense, which he wasn't rich enough to do.)

EDITED TO ADD:

I haven’t asked you to take anything at face value: just the opposite. I have provided you with several primary sources (i.e. eyewitness accounts) that specifically exonerate the Prince from blame for two of the mistakes made at Waterloo. (Tell me what the third one is that you refer to, and I’ll see what I can do with that one.)

Do any of the writers asserting the contrary produce eyewitness accounts that blame him? If they don’t (and Wootten, for one, certainly doesn’t), then they are the ones asking you to take their stories at face value, not me!

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

1) I can only check what's available to me and therefore without you providing book or Internet references for me to check I can only take you at face value.

2) There are always eyewitnesses in these events and practically everything I've ever read has all the commissioned officers pointing the finger at him. In fact these officers are quoted most of the time in these books and are far more reliable than any possible eyewitness accounts from the men.

3) He was blamed for 1 event in La Haye Sainte and 2 at Quatre Bras.

"Oh, but I read it in a book! Lots of books in fact! It must be true!"

This statement is doubly funny for me. Firstly these days it's more a case of: "I saw this on a film, it must be true!". I wish it was the case that people argued over minor inaccuracies in history books! Secondly the vast majority of people world wide wouldn't be able to name even 2 generals that fought in Waterloo let alone reading a book/s about the Peninsula Wars/Waterloo. I asked a Dutch guy about this the other day, he could only name Napoleon and that was through general reputation alone rather than knowledge of the event.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

I can only check what's available to me and therefore without you providing book or Internet references for me to check I can only take you at face value.

I did just that, viz -
- The Regimental Journal of the KGL
- The History of the King’s German Legion by North Ludlow Beamish
- The memoir of Ompteda compiled by his nephew, published in English translation in 1884 under the title "A Hanoverian-English Officer, a Hundred Years Ago"
- "Waterloo Letters by H T Siborne.

Admittedly, apart from the Siborne Letters these are rare and only to be found in highly specialised libraries, but that's the nature of primary sources, I'm afraid. If it helps, the three first are cited by Christopher Hibbert (who finds them totally convincing) in his edition of the memoirs of Edmund Wheatley, an English officer of the KGL:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Memoirs-Wheatley-Sketchbook-Peninsular/dp/1900624060

And Elizabeth Longford, in Wellington: the Years of the Sword, cites the statement from Captain Pigot of the 69th in the Siborne Letters.

There are always eyewitnesses in these events and practically everything I've ever read has all the commissioned officers pointing the finger at him. In fact these officers are quoted most of the time in these books and are far more reliable than any possible eyewitness accounts from the men.

I've given you the names of eyewitnesses who point the finger right away from the Prince. So give me the names of some of the officers who point the finger at him, and tell me how close they were to the events concerned. And if they weren't involved and didn't see them happen, please explain how they are "far more reliable" than the officers who were?

[–] DracenWolfe 16 years ago

In the novel Sharpe's Waterloo, Bernard Cornwell never called Prince William Silly Billy, that was the scriptwriter/director. Cornwell called him Slender Billy.

The nickname change irritated me when Sharpe's Waterloo was first aired. As were other changes, but that could be put down as budget problems.

The discrepencies in this couldn't be put down to that.

Getting back to the point of the thread, even Bernard Cornwell agrees that it was an Allied victory. The British would not have fought if they didn't believe the Prussians were coming to aid them. The Prussians would not have marched to Waterloo if they didn't believe the British would stand. They won it together.

He who lives by the sword will be shot by those who can't

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

DracenWolfe - I don't see how your post is even relevant to what we are saying. Firstly this isn't Sharp's Waterloo and secondary we aren't stating that it was anything other than an allied victory. We are simply discussing the various opinions of historians and academics of the Prince of Orange AKA Silly Billy role during the battle of Waterloo.

[–] joyfarrah 13 years ago

Silly Billy was the nickname of the Duke of Gloucester, who married Princess Mary.

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

Thanks for the sources I will be sure to have a read next time I get the chance.

And if they weren't involved and didn't see them happen, please explain how they are "far more reliable" than the officers who were?

I'm talking about the commissioned officers not the men, the men would have only a cursory understanding of where the orders were coming from and thus any testimony about where the orders were coming from is going to be dubious at best.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

All the sources I have quoted you were commissioned officers!

[–] zen0x 16 years ago

Well you said "the men" not the commissioned officers in you previous posts.

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

Eh???????????????
(goes back and reads through thread)

The only thing in this entire thread that you can be referring to is where I said that Beamish’s History of the King’s German Legion was published in 1837, “when there were still KGL men alive to tell their story”. It didn’t occur to me that anybody would jump to the conclusion that “men” in this context meant only KGL Other Ranks, and that Beamish didn’t seek testimony from surviving KGL officers!

Come to that, in my post immediately before that one, I wrote that the Prince “wasn't an experienced leader, and was expected to take the advice of the men around him who were”. You presumably didn’t read that as meaning that he was expected to consult the men in the ranks?

In any case, I had cited Captain Pigot; Ompteda’s nephew; and the KGL Regimental Journal (which was an official record, kept by the adjutant). So even if you misunderstood that phrase you already knew I had cited several officers!

[–] jarnomiedema 16 years ago

I'm Dutch and frankly I don't think we've ever dealt with the battle of Waterloo in our history classes.. I don't know how old your fiend is, but as far as I know it's barely considered a part of the curriculum..

In any case, I don't think (and I'm sure most Dutch historians will agree) Prince William was the one who led the allied armies to victory. Napoleon claims as much in his memoirs, but that seems to be more of an effort to try and deny Blücher and Wellington their recognition, so instead he gave it to the young man from the Netherlands..

What is important to note though is the slandering about Dutch troops that has been going on since the battle. While it's true that there was desertion, there were also plenty of examples of men standing their ground and fighting. In fact, when the Imperial Guard was sent in, it was in a great part due to the efforts of a Dutch regiment that they were repulsed. This happened some time AFTER Wellington forgot to order the Dutch regiments on his right flank to lie down. It's still hard to determine whether he either didn't care or whether it was miscommunication because of the different languages between the allies..

After the battle, there was some struggling for who would take all the glory. Wellington ended up ruining the life of one of his admirers after the man made a diorama of the battle, with 1 toy soldier for every actual soldier. When Wellington saw the amount of Prussian troops he was outraged (even though the man had gotten very close to what historical records indicate) and wrecked him. Furthermore, there were British historians who seem to forget the fact that it was an allied army and wrote histories of the battle as though it was fought between the British and the French alone. Fortunately that is starting to change, but public opinion of the battle is still the same old Wellington vs. Napoleon, with the British eventually winning..

[–] teacher_tom516 16 years ago

I've studied the battle of Waterloo for about 25 of my 31 years and it was this film that inspired me and made me fall in love with history in the first place. I've read a lot of books, some good, some bad, some rather silly and whenever something new or interesting about the battle comes up, I try and read it.

I think one thing about Waterloo is the British do try and over-tell their story. While the British regiments did perform commendably they were certainly not supermen, same with the German and Hanoverian units on the field. Sadly there seems to be a LOT of 'national bias' going around which leaves the poor Dutch Belgians rather spottied.

Holland had only recently returned to the rule of the house of Orange and yes, many Dutch and Belgians had fought in Napoleon's army. That in itself should say something - these weren't clog-headed conscripts, a lot of them were veteran soldiers and good officers.

I agree that a lot of slandering of the Dutch-Belgian forces is really undeserved. There were a LOT of problems with that 'infamous army' not the least were language problems - you had to understand at least 3 different English accents, a whole bunch of different German accents as well as the Dutch and Belgian and French - and of course you had to speak the language as well.

Most of Wellingtons veterans were in America, where a lot would get shot to pieces when Ned Packenham attacked New Orleans earlier that year. What he got in exchange were not always solid troops. The British cavalry, particularly the heavies, were inexperienced and not very reliable in that they had great horses and highly motivated men but could pretty much only perform one maneuver - the charge - and tended to overextend themselves once committed. Not all the British infantry would perform commendably during the following battles. The 69th Foot, as mentioned, was caught out of square and cut to pieces whereupon Wellington's old regiment, the 33rd Foot panicked and ran for the woods. The 92nd Gordon Highlanders were disorganized during Picton's attack on D'Erlon's corps and his dying words, "Rally the Highlanders" say more about the confused and possibly breaking state of the Gordons when Picton got shot.

To the contrary, the Dutch and Belgians get a bad rap but they actually performed better than a lot of the sources let on. The key decision to hold the Quatres Bras crossroads was made by General Constant de Rebeque, Orange's Chief of Staff and former tutor, and General Perponcher of the 1st Dutch Division. Wellington had actually ordered them to withdraw to another position but both decided to ignore the order and hold out there. So when Ney came to occupy the crossroads he found himself confronted by an unknown number of troops (w/c he could have crushed if he pushed forward) and decided to wait till morning and even then it took him a while to get started as he dithered and waited for D'Erlon to support him. Meanwhile the rest of Wellington's army marched in by increments but it was Rebeque and Perponcher's initial stand from the night of the 15th to about noon of the 16th that made a CRITICAL difference to the campaign.

Unfortunately by the time Picton's division marched in to 'save the day' the Dutch were exhausted, having held the town against a superior force (one over extended division and a jaeger battalion against an entire infantry corps plus cavalry and artillery supports) so they pretty much arrived in time to see the Dutch fall back and supposedly 'break' which pretty much confirmed their low opinion of the Dutch-Belgians.

The same goes for Waterloo - again it was Picton's division and Perponcher's troops, specifically Bylandt's brigade. History tells us - and this movie reminds us - that Bylandt's brigade 'broke' and Picton and the Brits had to save the day once again. However, in reality, while the brigade lost cohesion it did not break and run. Battalions of the brigade withdrew and continued to fight against D'Erlon's onslaught alongside the British brigades of Kempt and Pack and indeed it was the highlanders who might have broke if the Union and Household cavalry hadn't swept in to catch the French from an unexpected quarter.

The responsibility of Karl Alten for the decimation of Ompteda's brigade has already been discussed.

While Dutch cavalry is often characterized as cowardly there were occasions when British cavalry refused to charge and the one unit that deserted en masse was the Duke of Cumberland Hussars - a Hanoverian unit!

The event you refer to is probably the intervention - again virtually ignored or downplayed usually - of General Chasse's division from the far right of the line in the firefight that broke the legendary Imperial Guard. The British Guards were but one of the units involved - the 52nd Foot (Light Infantry) under Colborne and the troops of Chasse's division share equal honour.

Ultimately, everyone did their bit and it wasn't nationality that mattered but the courage of the soldiers. Like Nosey said, "There was glory enough for all".

"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient

[–] lambrettaguy200 16 years ago

I would agree with that !

I've got to admit, I don't like Bernard Cornwell's work very much. I've only read his civil war "Nathan Starbuck" novels, which I found totally contrived, like a "join up the historical events by numbers" with him in the centre and they made me squirm in my chair at times with embarrassment. Despite Sharpe's popularity, I've never read the novels, though I've seen a couple of TV dramatisations. Again, I found them laid on a bit thick and events so conveniently coincidental.

Bloody "South Essex" my arse ! Wot - No North Essex ? Sharpe's Waterloo was just too big an event to try and snip a little personal corner off. It looked very sparse.

BTW - is it true that Prince William (Slender Billy) was actually spotty ? I was also surprised to hear on TV that King Billy (William III)'s appearance was less that imposing, either he was a small guy or he had a stoop or something. Is anyone able to provide more info ?

But Dutch Prince Alexander (the gay one) looks okay and is well-proportioned. Thank God Charles married Diana who was sort of outside the usual inbred circle a bit and had normal looking kids, Wills and Harry, who look like they have normal ears and actually have chins.

"S h i t happens in mysterious ways, its wonders to peform"

[–] teacher_tom516 16 years ago

Hi Lambrettaguy!!

Well let's just say, they didn' call Slender Billy 'the young Frog' for nothing. However, I do think that his 'responsibility' for whatever disasters happened at Waterloo and elsewhere is greatly overblown. The historical record pretty much shows that the troops were either confused, had language difficulties, had held on too long and were over extended or it was another officer's fault and it was attributed to Orange.

For my part I tend to like Sharpe the same way I like Hornblower or Jack Aubrey though Forrester and O'Brien are definitely superior writers. Cornwell can't seem to resist putting Sean Bean - errrm Sharpe - in the thick of things and making him this superhero which makes for rollicking storytelling but kinda stretches believability as it wears on.

Hope all's going well with you!
Tom

"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pe81171 16 years ago

I agree about Wellington. But Blucher and the Prussians did an excellent job at Waterloo that day battling the French and coming back from a major defeat at Ligny just a couple days before.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

[–] nerminmer 12 years ago

In fact both Wellington and Blucher fought just fought as they supposed to do in their seperate stong aspects complate each other. Wellington was a master at defence and attritional warfare. His strategy to stand in Waterloo and wait Prussians paid off and finished Napoleon for good. Blucher is also sharing other half of credit. After his defear at Ligny two days ago it would be very easy for him to quit reatreat Rhine and end the campaign. Instead he committed himself to the battle to the end and his flank march to Waterloo concluded the battle as a clear Allied victory. There is no point saying he/that side won the battle others watched. This was always a coalition campaign.

[–] rogerneon 11 years ago

During the scenes of the ball at the beginning of the story, there is a slender fair-haired man in a blue uniform who seems to appear always to the left side of the screen. As far as I know he never says anything, and nobody ever speaks to him. Is he supposed to be The Prince?