Here is all you need!
http://centjours.mont-saint-jean.com/unitesNL.php
I told my dutch teacher who said the british won at waterloo, I told him he should shut his cakehole and that thats a bloody lie
"Come my comrades! Let us put our sabers to these Frenchmen! The victory is ours!" Quite inspiring eh?
Nassau was not just a place, it was also a noble house, and had marital and dynastic ties to the house of Orange, hence the Principality of Orange-Nassau. In 1815 though Willem IV traded Nassau with Prussia for Luxembourg, and it was then ceded to the independant Duchy of Nassau.
Therefore, the two Nassau battalions at Waterloo were under Wellington's command, but not as part of the Netherlands' armies, they were simply post-Confederation anti-Bonapartist forces - contributing to the Seventh Coalition. Their commander, von Kruse, had actually fought against Wellington's forces before in Spain from his time in the Confederation of the Rhine, but they could apparently put the past behind them for the sake of the present.
[...] and the Hollywood studios can not claim an American victory for Waterloo!
Can someone make a movie or a series like the Sharpe series but without the ridiculous British bias? I seriously have yet to see a movie about Waterloo that makes any mention of the Dutch-Belgians, Brunswickers, Nassauers, or Hanoverians save for inaccurate criticisms of course. I still boil inside when I see how they portray the Prince of Orange in Sharpe's Waterloo and then act like the British soldiers were perfect examples of manly toughness and the Dutch-Belgians were pompous buffoons and cowards. I want to see a movie where Bijlandt's Brigade makes its stand, where Chasse's Division breaks the Middle Guard, Where Ghigny's Brigade throws themselves into the French lancers, and where Tripp's Brigade shatters the cuirassiers.
Also on a slightly off topic note, am I the only one who's noticed that Dutch units in Napoleon Total War have significantly lower stats than those of British troops or French troops? Why is this? It makes very little sense especially given that many Dutch-Belgians had fought in the French army for many years and many of them earned several honors for their service.
Can someone make a movie or a series like the Sharpe series but without the ridiculous British bias? I seriously have yet to see a movie about Waterloo that makes any mention of the Dutch-Belgians, Brunswickers, Nassauers, or Hanoverians save for inaccurate criticisms of course. I still boil inside when I see how they portray the Prince of Orange in Sharpe's Waterloo and then act like the British soldiers were perfect examples of manly toughness and the Dutch-Belgians were pompous buffoons and cowards. I want to see a movie where Bijlandt's Brigade makes its stand, where Chasse's Division breaks the Middle Guard, Where Ghigny's Brigade throws themselves into the French lancers, and where Tripp's Brigade shatters the cuirassiers.
Also on a slightly off topic note, am I the only one who's noticed that Dutch units in Napoleon Total War have significantly lower stats than those of British troops or French troops? Why is this? It makes very little sense especially given that many Dutch-Belgians had fought in the French army for many years and many of them earned several honors for their service.
Dunno what your talking about, pretty much every british character is either a Theif, Gypsy or a lieing total weasel who's about to have his guts pumped with lead. Even one of Sharpe's Rifles gets clobbered around the head for stealing a chicken then gets hung by the provosts.
Then you have the whole British company that deserts in spain and goes around looting and pillaging, let alone the ones that take up refuge with Hakeswell ... if you paid any attention to Sharpe then you would know all is not well in the British army ... even Wellington mentions his men are nothing but "Theives and Criminals" held together by nothing but the money he attempts to put into their pockets.
So this crap about British Bias in Sharpe? I think that only dwells in the Character Sharpe and thats it, the rest are well ... pretty much all of them are backstabbers or theives ... or a pompus officer who deserves nothing but to get shot.
On the terms of the Prince of Orange, I agree they made him out to be something he wasn't but just to fit the story a bit better for Sharpe. But the actual regiment that stands up to the French Column advancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDdTB1GzHJw
Refering to the Dutch regiment Sharpe says "Forming up most formidable and credible".
British Biased my Arse.
So this crap about British Bias in Sharpe? I think that only dwells in the Character Sharpe and thats it, the rest are well ... pretty much all of them are backstabbers or theives ... or a pompus officer who deserves nothing but to get shot.
On the terms of the Prince of Orange, I agree they made him out to be something he wasn't but just to fit the story a bit better for Sharpe. But the actual regiment that stands up to the French Column advancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDdTB1GzHJw
Refering to the Dutch regiment Sharpe says "Forming up most formidable and credible".
British Biased my Arse.
Siborne did stuff it up didn't he ,but it is goo to see more historians etc excepting hat he was wrongI agree, I always love to learn about the unsung heroes or the ones who did their part but were forgotten. It's much like how most people remember the Battle of Thermopylae, 300 against a million yet the 7000 other Greeks are left unmentioned very often
So this crap about British Bias in Sharpe? I think that only dwells in the Character Sharpe and thats it, the rest are well ... pretty much all of them are backstabbers or theives ... or a pompus officer who deserves nothing but to get shot.
On the terms of the Prince of Orange, I agree they made him out to be something he wasn't but just to fit the story a bit better for Sharpe. But the actual regiment that stands up to the French Column advancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDdTB1GzHJw
Refering to the Dutch regiment Sharpe says "Forming up most formidable and credible".
British Biased my Arse.
The movie is slightly better then the book, I'll give you that. But why does this video link to a bunch of LARPers?
I don't know if you know the book, but I'm willing to type out some of the headlines to you. For one, 'The Belgians [The Bylandt Brigade] took one look at the French columns [D'erlon Corps] and ran. The British line jeered at them, but they didn't care. Their loyalty laid with the emperor, and they [...] and wait for the emperer to win his victory"
Is it completly necessary to write this nonsense?
1. The Bylandt Brigade was only for a 1/5 Belgian'
2. It fought D'erlon Corps head on, before retreating, after which they took no more part in the battle. Officers of the 92nd actually wrote that 'The Belgians [and Dutch] returned fire with great spirit, before retreating slowly towards the hedge"
3. Though the loyally of the Belgians was divided, one should remember that all the troops were volunteers.
I can give MANY more examples, so yes, British Biased indeed.
Siborne did stuff it up didn't he ,but it is goo to see more historians etc excepting hat he was wrongI agree, I always love to learn about the unsung heroes or the ones who did their part but were forgotten. It's much like how most people remember the Battle of Thermopylae, 300 against a million yet the 7000 other Greeks are left unmentioned very often
Either way the Belgians reatreating later is a historical fact correct? if so then how it is described would be opinion, also officers can hardly go saying "Well those Belgians reatreated like dogs" could they? and officers are of a different statuer and class than the Infantryman.
QuoteEither way the Belgians reatreating later is a historical fact correct? if so then how it is described would be opinion, also officers can hardly go saying "Well those Belgians reatreated like dogs" could they? and officers are of a different statuer and class than the Infantryman.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this...
Also, that 'Dutch 27th regiment' looks distinctively like Nassauers... Even having a Nassau flag. Oh Sharpe...
I think the pain of historical inaccuracy would be much less if he (Cornwell) had apologize for all the faults. Not even the biasing, but also plain historical faults...but he doesn't. He only says he believes the Prince sent infantry in line against cavalry. 3 times
Hush, he's only supposed to read the title.
Fiction claiming to be historical. I mean, couldn't Cornwall just NOT say anything, instead of 'THEY RAN LIKE FUCKING COWARDS' ?
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...
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
(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. 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?
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.
How does the Somme and Gallipoli have anything to do with political correctness?
Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic.
Edit: found something interesting on the Bylandt Brigade:
In the next hours the brigade stood and fought between their British comrades of the Pack and Kempt brigades (according to all eye-witness reports!). And although the heaviest cavalry attacks of the French were in the centre of the battlefield, the brigade had to form squares several times when the enemy cavalry came too close. It happened also several times that the flank companies of the battalions were sent down the forward slope to protect them from enemy-skirmisher fire. Captain Bronkhorst says that they were sent out three times. Grunebosch says that this skirmish line was there until the evening under the command of the wounded Singendonck. During these skirmisher fights there was probably no immediate danger from cavalry. Captain Bronkhorst (7th Militia), in his skirmish line down the forward slope, did see the Prussians attack at 19.00 hours (78). Most sources declare these skirmisher fights (and the cavalry attacks in the Allied centre) as the 'second attack".
Between 19.00-19.30 hours the French guard attacks. And although this is a different story (as it is happening in the centre of the Allied line) it had some consequences for the Van Bijlandt brigade.
When the Guard advances the Brigade of Kempt and Van Bijlandt were ordered forward as well. Kempt was ordered to advance to the right flank of the advancing guard column (see map). Van Bijlandt was ordered forward to protect Kempts' left flank. And thus once again the brigade came forward, skirmishers out. They went all the way down into the valley. There was little resistance at first. But it seems that this changed soon afterwards. French voltigeurs started to exchange fire. Soon afterwards the brigade ran out of ammunition and was ordered to retreat behind the lines (17).
Holding their position until they ran out of ammo. I believe that can be considered a bit 'heroically'?
Why exactly are you going this off-topic? xD
I'm not saying brits didn't do heroic stuff. But honour those who deserve being honoured!
I would say that getting new ammo sounds a lot better than just standing there till the ammo comes to you!
*snip*
*snip*
I'm not Belgian, Kator, I'm Dutch.
You have basically added nothing to this entire thread (Which is about the Netherlands army participation in the Waterloo-Campaign, and never about 'who's a hero?'), so please, next time you are going to post somewhere, please before doing so, think if you are adding something to the conversation.
Only a fraction of this thread has been about Sharpe, my problem rests with the accounts of Siborne who claimed them to be facts and too many people regard them as facts. Sharpe was only mentioned briefly as more of an annoyance. We're not just talking about Sharpe as you seem to perceive, we're talking about the entirety of the Dutch-Belgian contributions at Waterloo as well as how they've been put down because of wildly inaccurate British bias.
And on the issue of heroes, you say a hero retreats at the right time. Wouldn't being totally out of ammunition and vastly underpowered after long hours of fighting and withstanding artillery barrages be the right time to retreat?
Newsflash:
I found a soldier who had served in Austria, Prussia and Spain in the Dutch army, and finally ended up in the 1er Grenadiers in 1813. A year later, after the war was over, he was called into service into the 19th militia battalion (NL) and served at Waterloo as a corporal. His regiment was part of Ditmers Brigade, Chassé's Division.Spoiler(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QzTgec_j_LU/UNeJT77IWqI/AAAAAAAAB6w/o6a3iKh59nY/s1440/Frederic_Simonis.png)[close]
Well kator, Simonis wasn't born there :p
KillerMongoose, I did my best ( even talked to people from the 7de Bvl, but I have not found a picture of vandensande.
There's a kid at my school who loves England (not all of the UK, just England) he even once wore a shirt to school that said "GOD SAVE ENGLAND!" in big bold letters.
Anyway, during lunch today I was minding my own business drawing a Belgian soldier when he came up to me and asked if it was a British soldier (an understandable mistake given that it wasn't colored and the uniforms are similar) and when I replied, "No, it's actually a Belgian infantryman" he looked at me like I had just admitted to eating babies and said "you know they were cowards right?" There was a long pause before an intense debate began, he knew little to nothing about the actual battle of Waterloo and is convinced that it was the rough and tough British who saved the day with their impenetrable squares. He insisted that the Dutch-Belgian soldiers ran before shots were fired and left the British to fight all alone. Yes he said alone. Either he didn't know there were Hannoverians, Prussians, and Brunswickers, or he just doesn't give them credit. I couldn't get anything through that thick skull of his and the argument went on until the bell rang.
Is it normal to want to hit somebody for being so stupid?
There's a kid at my school who loves England (not all of the UK, just England) he even once wore a shirt to school that said "GOD SAVE ENGLAND!" in big bold letters.A Yankee loving the English is an abomination anyway.
Anyway, during lunch today I was minding my own business drawing a Belgian soldier when he came up to me and asked if it was a British soldier (an understandable mistake given that it wasn't colored and the uniforms are similar) and when I replied, "No, it's actually a Belgian infantryman" he looked at me like I had just admitted to eating babies and said "you know they were cowards right?" There was a long pause before an intense debate began, he knew little to nothing about the actual battle of Waterloo and is convinced that it was the rough and tough British who saved the day with their impenetrable squares. He insisted that the Dutch-Belgian soldiers ran before shots were fired and left the British to fight all alone. Yes he said alone. Either he didn't know there were Hannoverians, Prussians, and Brunswickers, or he just doesn't give them credit. I couldn't get anything through that thick skull of his and the argument went on until the bell rang.
Is it normal to want to hit somebody for being so stupid?
There's a kid at my school who loves England (not all of the UK, just England) he even once wore a shirt to school that said "GOD SAVE ENGLAND!" in big bold letters.A Yankee loving the English is an abomination anyway.
Anyway, during lunch today I was minding my own business drawing a Belgian soldier when he came up to me and asked if it was a British soldier (an understandable mistake given that it wasn't colored and the uniforms are similar) and when I replied, "No, it's actually a Belgian infantryman" he looked at me like I had just admitted to eating babies and said "you know they were cowards right?" There was a long pause before an intense debate began, he knew little to nothing about the actual battle of Waterloo and is convinced that it was the rough and tough British who saved the day with their impenetrable squares. He insisted that the Dutch-Belgian soldiers ran before shots were fired and left the British to fight all alone. Yes he said alone. Either he didn't know there were Hannoverians, Prussians, and Brunswickers, or he just doesn't give them credit. I couldn't get anything through that thick skull of his and the argument went on until the bell rang.
Is it normal to want to hit somebody for being so stupid?
Hey! What'd we ever do to you :'(
And I think ye mates been watching/reading too much Sharpe's Waterloo Mongoose, and banging his head on the desk too much :P
Is this another alternative history thread on how Dutch won the battle of Waterloo just like they won the American Revolutionary War? ::)leave the discussion of another thread there.
Ah, I love this thread.
The Dutch-Belgian army was a real late-Napoleonic one - Almost all of those who had experience, had been fighting for the French. The fact that their regiments had deserted the French en-masse in 13/14 didn't stop British suspicion towards them.
What can we say about the Regiments? Trough the research of army lists, it has been discovered that the amount of deserters was actually quite high, but many of those deserted just before a battle (Bit scary after all) or after the (first) abdication of Napoleon. Many has signed 3 or 6 years of service, and they did not particular wanted to serve another 5 years in fortress service.
One other fact is that this army was largely made up of volunteers with no experience - the Dutch army, which had been re-organized many times during the Nap. Wars, was always made of the same men - But those men had mostly died in Russia. I estimate that about 1 in 5 of every Dutch-Belgian soldier of the regular army had been in the army before.
Now let's look at the battles. First, Quatre-Bras. Against Wellington's orders, The Prince of Orange decided to deploy his corps alongside the crossroads - Saxen-Weimar in the woods, with some companies of the 27ste Jagers, and the 5th Battalion of Militia in Gemincourt farm (Both battalions were part of Bylandts Brigade, which also included the 7th (Belgian) Infantry battalion.). They skirmishes for the entire morning and a part of the afternoon (Unlike Sharpe's Waterloo, where nothing happens, until the British heroically arrive. God, I hate that book.).
Eventually, Ney organised an entire French Brigade to attack Gemincourt farm. They threw out the 5th, which reorganized at the north. At that time, the 28th Foot (British) came marching down, but as they saw the farm being taken, they retreated. The 5th Militia, however, thought they were going to be re-enforced and charged the farm, clearing away the French soldiers from everything except a farmhouse. They then deployed SOUTH of the farm, and managed to kick back three cavalry charges, being lead by the Prince. There has also been an account of a dutch horse artillery battery which recaptured their cannons by a sword charge - Not bad for men who never received proper cavalry training.
Though, some stupid things happened too. The 27ste was caught in line by the Red Lancers and suffered heavy casualties, and a cavalry charge made by NL cavalry was, all trough successful at the start, pushed back and fired upon by mistake by the Gordon Highlanders. At a certain point in the afternoon, Wellington took command and with him, a large British continent took over the battle from their tired Dutch allies. We can just guess what happened if the Prince had followed Wellesley orders to keep retreating - It might have made sure the Prussians and British-Dutch army were split long enough for Napoleon to win Waterloo.
At Waterloo, Chassé's Division, of 2 Dutch brigades, was deployed to the east of the battle, to stop the flanking attack of Napoleon - Which never happened. The Bylandt Brigade (here they are again!) was deployed before the ridge, and thus in perfect range of French artillery. God knows why they were still out there. Some say Wellington placed them there just because he didn't care about them. Personally, I think it was just a mistake, made by multiple people. Anyhow, the Brigade took heavy casualties and was the first to be attacked by D'Erlon. They made a most gallant stand, according to some 92nd Highlander officers. According to 'historian' Siborne, who wasn't there, they ran without firing a shot. Choose who to believe.
Late in the afternoon, Wellington knew there was a final attack coming, and so he ordered Chassé to deploy his division to the west of the British line. He marched them quickly behind the British line, as the French Guard was attack. The middle Guard was leading this attack, which wasn't directed to go straight at the, but from east-to-west. Chassé deployed one Dutch brigade as general reserve, and another one, Detmars, marched into position just as the Middle guard was reaching the slope of the hill. They shot them to pieces, and cheering they made a bayonet charge (Chassé was also known as Generaal Bajonet - he favoured the charge) and they drove them back. But instead of holding their position, they went after them, 10 to 15 minutes PRIOR to the famous 'General advance'. Trapped between La haye Sainte and the Dutch brigade (which consisted of just two battalions of regulars and four of Militia), they put up a good fight, but ran eventually.
And here I end my story. Yes, I sound a bit biased for the Dutch, that might be, but I believe every word I said here, and I got direct evidence for most of it.
Oh, another fun fact - one of the corporals of the6th2nd (Dutch) Infantry battalion, part of Detmars brigade, was Czech, native of Prague.
Is this another alternative history thread on how Dutch won the battle of Waterloo just like they won the American Revolutionary War? ::)
Is this another alternative history thread on how Dutch won the battle of Waterloo just like they won the American Revolutionary War? ::)Its a thread on how the Dutch-Belgians contributed significantly to the Allied victory at waterloo, its not alternate history, it is history
Indeed, we could also talk aboot how the Prussians contributed to the victory, since unfortunately they're often overlooked :(
Oooh I think I will, I'll write up a post either later or tomorrow, I know quite a bit of their involvement and the battling around Plachenoit(forget how you spell it right now x) ) so I do my best :)
All I know is that the Prussians and Nassau light infantry fired at eachother for 10 minutes... :P
I've always wondered how you can mistake green-coated Nassauers for French bluecoats.
Make a seperate one, the topic title doesn't suit your information, people wouldn't know were to look anymore =D
I'm not very enlightened on French society in NW, I was under the impression Napoleonic code and leadership made him the man of France.
Whoever thinks autocratic royalty was better for France than Napoleon is an amazing guy according to me
Whoever thinks autocratic royalty was better for France than Napoleon is an amazing guy according to me
Yeah, I know right.
Don't rewrite my sentences you bundle of sticks. I hope thee shall be guillotined on the fourteenth of the seventh month in the name of the glorious Empire under Emperor Napoleon I.
Guillotine is more...Robespierre :P