Author Topic: The Dutch at Waterloo  (Read 45578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2012, 08:20:08 pm »
Saving private Ryan? No idea, I know very little on WWII. The patriot? I completely agree with you there. "We ain't slaves, we work this land free men!"

my problem lies with the amount of people thinking Sharpe's Waterloo is 99% accurate. Which it ain't. And it's more then a few lines. It's basically the entire book.

I've been on multiple so-called 'historical' fora, and everytime we talk about Waterloo or the Dutch soldiers in general, people start quoting Sharpe and saying 'See here, a good example'. Granted, not the fault of Cornwell entirely, but he could have taken some precautions.

Cornwell makes a idiotic amounts of historical faults, actually, starting with the capturing of the eagle of a Dutch regiment, who didn't even carry the things...
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 08:23:39 pm by Duuring »

Offline Kator Viridian

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2012, 11:20:19 pm »
Saving private Ryan? No idea, I know very little on WWII. The patriot? I completely agree with you there. "We ain't slaves, we work this land free men!"

my problem lies with the amount of people thinking Sharpe's Waterloo is 99% accurate. Which it ain't. And it's more then a few lines. It's basically the entire book.

I've been on multiple so-called 'historical' fora, and everytime we talk about Waterloo or the Dutch soldiers in general, people start quoting Sharpe and saying 'See here, a good example'. Granted, not the fault of Cornwell entirely, but he could have taken some precautions.

Cornwell makes a idiotic amounts of historical faults, actually, starting with the capturing of the eagle of a Dutch regiment, who didn't even carry the things...

If people are stupid enough to beleive Cornwell ... well its their fault really, wouldn't have a quarm with Cornwell considering everything was advertised as Based on and Fiction.

Kinda simple really.

Offline KillerMongoose

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1432
  • "And I believe I have cut your throat"- Fiore
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Wryngwyrm
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2012, 04:58:45 pm »
I saw a person on youtube commenting "dutchbelgians? you mean the cowards who abandoned the British soldiers at Waterloo?? FACT!!1" It's people like that who make me want to kick a small child. How can people still remain so ignorant? It honestly boggles my mind that people can be so stupid and uninformed.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2012, 07:47:09 pm »
The problem doesn't (only) lie with Cornwell, really. From even the start, the British tried to hide their mistakes and blame their allies for basically everything that went wrong. And boy, things went WRONG during the Waterloo campaign.

But still, I don't understand why Cornwell didn't just write the things as they happened - I mean, for one scene, Sharpe has to run like freaking hell to the South essex as he is being chased by French cavarly. In reality, the 6th Dutch hussars charged directly after arriving from a long march, pushed back some French troops, only to be pushed back in turn by the Red Lancers.
Why does Cornwell feel the need to write down: "The Belgian hussars didn't want to charge their countrymen [the red Lancers] and ran."

Besides the fact that this is not the way it happened, the Hussars were Dutch and the Red Lancers completely French - with the exception of a few senior Dutch officers. Even if a book is 'based on' and 'fiction', it shouldn't be called 'historical' if you get facts wrong one can find up by using Google.

Right, enough Sharpe, enough Cornwell, enough books. Time for an experiment! What do you guys think if we did a campaign of thoughts, if the French had reached Quatre-bras before Perponchers Division? (Don't start already, first tell me if you guys are up for it  :P)

Offline zac

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #64 on: December 19, 2012, 11:32:29 am »
up for it :)

Offline KillerMongoose

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1432
  • "And I believe I have cut your throat"- Fiore
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Wryngwyrm
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #65 on: December 19, 2012, 03:05:40 pm »
I'm considering writing a long, detailed report on the contributions of the Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo for an assignment. What do you guys think? I was considering even publishing it perhaps  :P

Offline zac

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #66 on: December 19, 2012, 03:09:08 pm »
nice idea, more people will not that it was an ALLIED victory that way :)

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #67 on: December 19, 2012, 04:47:17 pm »
I'm considering writing a long, detailed report on the contributions of the Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo for an assignment. What do you guys think? I was considering even publishing it perhaps  :P

My only advice would be to make certain you don't bias for the Dutch-Belgians(So avoid words as 'brave' as much as possible). So write down facts, do some research. If you need any help with the composition of the Dutch regiments - I got them army lists right here on a link.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 06:35:51 pm by Duuring »

Offline Kator Viridian

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2012, 10:42:17 pm »
(1)The problem doesn't (only) lie with Cornwell, really. From even the start, the British tried to hide their mistakes and blame their allies for basically everything that went wrong. And boy, things went WRONG during the Waterloo campaign.

(2)But still, I don't understand why Cornwell didn't just write the things as they happened - I mean, for one scene, Sharpe has to run like freaking hell to the South essex as he is being chased by French cavarly. In reality, the 6th Dutch hussars charged directly after arriving from a long march, pushed back some French troops, only to be pushed back in turn by the Red Lancers.
Why does Cornwell feel the need to write down: "The Belgian hussars didn't want to charge their countrymen [the red Lancers] and ran."

(3)Besides the fact that this is not the way it happened, the Hussars were Dutch and the Red Lancers completely French - with the exception of a few senior Dutch officers. Even if a book is 'based on' and 'fiction', it shouldn't be called 'historical' if you get facts wrong one can find up by using Google.

(4)Right, enough Sharpe, enough Cornwell, enough books. Time for an experiment! What do you guys think if we did a campaign of thoughts, if the French had reached Quatre-bras before Perponchers Division? (Don't start already, first tell me if you guys are up for it  :P)

1) Isn't that pretty much everyones tactic for their standpoint of the view of a battle "We did great ... everyone else was crap" you even say it during a line battle "Look at that regiment its crap ..." even though you are dead before them. Human nature ... sorry but thats just the thing, blame others for your own mistakes because admitting to them makes yourself look worse.

2) But the Belgians Broke and ran ... so he isn't technically wrong at all, if they also didn't charge the Red lancers then ... he's right there too, dosn't matter how he describes it as we have already established his biased.

3) Considering Belgium was part of France for the majority of its history that or fought over by the HRE, its barely lasted about 200 years of history ... which is shorter than "America" but longer than the "USA" bit confusing I know but hey as is history and politics. The Idea of countrymen could still be used for the British and Australian or British and Canadian considering they are part of the commonwealth. This is where language plays a key role and is much of his "Biased" (Well his biased's are really variable by a persons opinion), he bases his statement to start with fact ... which you can't dispute they did run/retreat/advance backwards ... the point is your seeing "Ran" as "Running like cowardly children!" when really its just "Retreat".

The Scots were lead by an Englishman and called British ... when really they were Scottish. Its the same now sort of.

For the better understanding of Britain -
He may be American ... or Canadian (Think Canadian tbh) but is right.

Anyway the point of Leadership, if it is Belgian attacking Belgian officers are they not countrymen or would the Belgian officers suddenly become French? if so is not Belgium and France therefore the same? If Not then Surely they are charging Countrymen therefore he is correct ... Checkmate?

4) "What if" Scenarios to me are pretty pointless, because what your trying is an unliniar attempt at what you think would happen if you were the General ... which you arn't so therefore cannot accomplish the one thing you set out for ... the "What if" Scenario.

Offline KillerMongoose

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1432
  • "And I believe I have cut your throat"- Fiore
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Wryngwyrm
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2012, 04:55:39 am »
Saying that the Belgians "broke and ran" is highly inaccurate. Bylandt's Brigade was deployed ahead of the British and bore the brunt of the French infantry attack. And they did not "break and run" in fact they fought the French fiercely, officers from Bylandt's brigade as well as British sources describe the firefight with the French as being "protracted and effective" and describe the eagerness of their soldiers to greet the French with a double row.

"Having approach us to within 50 paces not a shot had been fired, but now the impatience of the soldiers could do no longer be restrained, and they greeted the enemy (French) with a double row." Col. van Zuylen van Nyevelt, chief-of-staff of 2nd Division

And Lieutenant Hope of the British 92nd Foot wrote that "The Belgians were assailed with a terrible fury and returned the fire of the enemy for some time with great spirit and later retired from the hedge." Keep in mind that this whole time they were ahead of the British lines and not to mention much of Bylandt's brigade fought hard at Quatre Bras and bore the full weight of the French artillery.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2012, 11:38:06 am »
1. I agree there, but that doesn't make it excusable, really.

2. The cavalry wasn't Belgian at all and the charge did not happen like described in Sharpe's waterloo.
The book is complete blabla anyway; I'm rereading it now, and yet again I'm surprises at the amount of historical errors.

3. Not sure what your point is. Belgium had been part of the HRE for some 200 years.

4. You are more then welcome to join in :p

Bylandt's brigade actually fell back from their dangerous position, on orders of general Perponcher. We call it a tactical retreat (they formed up between Picton and the Nassau brigade). Siborne calls it a complete rout. Now, kator, whats it in your opinion?

Offline Kator Viridian

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2012, 08:16:35 pm »
1. I agree there, but that doesn't make it excusable, really.

2. The cavalry wasn't Belgian at all and the charge did not happen like described in Sharpe's waterloo.
The book is complete blabla anyway; I'm rereading it now, and yet again I'm surprises at the amount of historical errors.

3. Not sure what your point is. Belgium had been part of the HRE for some 200 years.

4. You are more then welcome to join in :p

Bylandt's brigade actually fell back from their dangerous position, on orders of general Perponcher. We call it a tactical retreat (they formed up between Picton and the Nassau brigade). Siborne calls it a complete rout. Now, kator, whats it in your opinion?

I'm glad you made it an opinion, because every retreat is "Tactical" anyone can claim that with any evidence as "Tactical" to one person is "Fleeing" in another.

For example Good and bad are just opinions and points of view, you will always have arguments on this and no-one is right at all as they are just opinonated sides of an argument.

The fact is through Neutrality "They retreated", this is un-refutable fact, no matter how you look at it plain and simple retreat, the Biased's come in through "Heroically" or "Cowardly". Now in order for for a "Break" the regiment must of lost cohesion at some point, in order to retreat Cohesion must be lost in order to turn around and move in the opposite direction of advancement.



"The Hussars were Dutch and the Red Lancers completely French - with the exception of a few senior Dutch officers" Did you or did you not say this? which would mean the French were lead by Dutch officers? Therefore countrymen?

Also about Belgium, Flanders was fought over by HRE, Spain and France through Burgundy and the Habsburg and Valois wars. Always loved that part of History, so much more going on.


In My opinion I'd call it a rout, why? because you never retreat unless you are loosing. For example the Blue Coats in the English Civil war, although outnumbered about 20 to one Sat in formation and kept fighting, wave after wave of parlimentarians until finally they broke and routed.

The only tactical retreat i've seen is a luring manouver when conflict dosn't really happen but infact lies are planted and are enforced to try and lure in an enemy, such as the battle of 1066 of Hastings (Although not really there at all) when the accidental routing of Williams left flank resulted in trapping of Saxon warriors ... to which he then used to purposefuly thin out the lines of Harold's Army.

In this case with the Dutch without having any purpose other than to save their own skins I would count it as Routing.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2012, 09:01:05 pm »
So Wellingtons retreat after Talavera was a complete rout? Wellingtons decision to retreat after Quatre-bras was a complete rout?

Bylandt retreated from a position in full sight of the enemy to a position where they connected Picton's division to the left flank (Saxe-Weimar's Brigade). They gave up about a hundred yards of ground for a position in cover and to protect the flanks of the other units. Not only was Bylandts initial position in full sight of enemy artillery, it was also uncovered by their allies. In other words, it was a useless position. What would you want them to do? Stay there, be beaten and then let the French split up the left?

The Dutch lancers had a total of 2 Dutch officers in their ranks, out of 47. So yeah, naming it a Dutch regiment is 100% accurate. While we are at it, we best call the 1er Chasseurs a Dutch unit too, for the major of the 1st Battalion was a Dutchman named Duuring.

I do wonder what a tactical retreat is in your eyes.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 09:18:29 pm by Duuring »

Offline Van_Hulstein

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 987
  • Orangist and very proud ex-33rd Lieutenant.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: NL_VanHulstein
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2012, 11:07:56 pm »
This 5 pages gave me a lot of information.
We in The Netherlands have bad history books;
1) Almost no history about the fatherland.
2) Just 3 pages in history books about Waterloo, NOTHING mentioned about the Dutch influence.
3) Our history books look even a bit like Geography.

Nunc aut nunquam

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The Dutch at Waterloo
« Reply #74 on: December 21, 2012, 11:35:31 pm »
This 5 pages gave me a lot of information.
We in The Netherlands have bad history books;
1) Almost no history about the fatherland.
2) Just 3 pages in history books about Waterloo, NOTHING mentioned about the Dutch influence.
3) Our history books look even a bit like Geography.

Depends on the kind of books your school has  ;)