The Prussians at Waterloo

[Docm30]

I don't see how Chassé was a traitor or turncoat. He fought consistently in the armies of Holland and the Netherlands. That's the same as calling Lord Raglan a traitor for having fought the French in the Napoleonic Wars and then fighting alongside them in the Crimea.

I'd also suggest you don't tell people they're biased and then proceed to chuck out a bunch of Rule Britannia rubbish.

[zac]

Rule Britannia, God Save The Queen,,Death to the Americans and the French,Long live the Commonwealth!!!!

[Duuring]

The British comes from a proud background and still holds it up even today, people who flick sides are still treated with suspician. If you want to follow the moralities of today you can happily say Chassé went behind Wellingtons back to get approval from his second in command attempting to get recognition ... not that the Prince of Orange could of put him forward too.

He corresponded with Hill and, Hill corresponded with Wellington about that. That's hardly 'behind his back'.

The prince was one of the admirers of Wellington and I don't think he would do something against the duke's will, but that's just guessing. He was shot and down for about a week anyway, so he missed the first crucial 'who was the hero'-ramblings.

Saying the 'flicked sides' is rather harsh. These men had sworn an oath to serve the Emperor, and they kept to that oath until they were released. Many then swore an oath to serve William I, and so they did. Some stayed to serve Napoleon (Duuring) and a Dutch admiral who had defended Den Helder vigorously against the Dutch (When in service of the emperor), had after sworn to serve king Louis, and when Napoleon came back, he stayed with Louis and refused to follow Napoleons orders.

Buuuut we are getting off-topic. So, I will end this discussion and ask my old question again. Would you like to reply on the previous statements, there is a thread for the Dutchies at waterloo.

What was the opinion of Prussian officers on the British troops during the Waterloo campaign, and more specific, their opinion on Wellesley?

[Mr T]

Now then, now then ladies keep it civil

Thanks for the good comments people

[Kator Viridian]

I don't see how Chassé was a traitor or turncoat. He fought consistently in the armies of Holland and the Netherlands. That's the same as calling Lord Raglan a traitor for having fought the French in the Napoleonic Wars and then fighting alongside them in the Crimea.

I'd also suggest you don't tell people they're biased and then proceed to chuck out a bunch of Rule Britannia rubbish.

Well it wasn't very rules Britannia at all, your just saying that with a lack of come back from the statements made, your psychology is a bit off i'd say and your analysis of past and present psychological thought processes is a bit bad. Learn the difference between how things were and how they are now and realise they are 2 different things entirely.

To Wellington he may of been seen as a turncoat during the time of waterloo which is maybe why Chassé was put in reserves and not on the front imdiately or maybe Wellington was actually keeping him back as a surprise up his sleeve. But we'll never know without asking so we're a bit stuck there on the actual reasoning ... he was either "The ace" or he was "The political stain on Wellingtons career".

If Wellington had acknowledged Chassé over his own Generals in said actions where would that leave him at home? people would be asking questions why "A Known French General was getting more recognition than his own Nations Heros?", Psychology plays a lot more into it than people think, its not just because he was pompus but already planning his future and saving face. As said before a clever and adept politician ... dosn't make him a fantastic General.

So when you say I was all "Rule Britannia" did you ever take into fact that Wellington might of actually been good at what he did and actually does later in his life?

Opinions/Sides of a story/Political Ideology ... this is what you should look for in a generals actions ... what do they have to gain out of outcomes?

For Chassé well it was quite evident what he got out of his loyalty towards the Prince and his Valiant actions isn't it?

Everyone is out for a gain ... never deny that atleast.

The British comes from a proud background and still holds it up even today, people who flick sides are still treated with suspician. If you want to follow the moralities of today you can happily say Chassé went behind Wellingtons back to get approval from his second in command attempting to get recognition ... not that the Prince of Orange could of put him forward too.

He corresponded with Hill and, Hill corresponded with Wellington about that. That's hardly 'behind his back'.

The prince was one of the admirers of Wellington and I don't think he would do something against the duke's will, but that's just guessing. He was shot and down for about a week anyway, so he missed the first crucial 'who was the hero'-ramblings.

Saying the 'flicked sides' is rather harsh. These men had sworn an oath to serve the Emperor, and they kept to that oath until they were released. Many then swore an oath to serve William I, and so they did. Some stayed to serve Napoleon (Duuring) and a Dutch admiral who had defended Den Helder vigorously against the Dutch (When in service of the emperor), had after sworn to serve king Louis, and when Napoleon came back, he stayed with Louis and refused to follow Napoleons orders.

Buuuut we are getting off-topic. So, I will end this discussion and ask my old question again. Would you like to reply on the previous statements, there is a thread for the Dutchies at waterloo.

What was the opinion of Prussian officers on the British troops during the Waterloo campaign, and more specific, their opinion on Wellesley?

I'll leave you to keep it on Topic as always duuring ... but you should know that National Identity should never come into a Neutral viewing of history by now.

[Duuring]

Chassé's division formed the right flank of Wellingtons army, to block a flanking attack that never happened. Just like Perponchers Division held the left flank.

[Kator Viridian]

Chassé's division formed the right flank of Wellingtons army, to block a flanking attack that never happened. Just like Perponchers Division held the left flank.

But what does Wellington have to gain/lose by doing so?

[Duuring]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. 'The problem' is not about where Chassé was posted (Which was not, as people think, in the reserve, but at the right flank, which btw, was considered the most honorably position), but it's about the fact he and his men were not given their (rightfully earned) credit by Wellington. Just like he gave no credit to (to get back on topic) the Prussians.

[Kator Viridian]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. 'The problem' is not about where Chassé was posted (Which was not, as people think, in the reserve, but at the right flank, which btw, was considered the most honorably position), but it's about the fact he and his men were not given their (rightfully earned) credit by Wellington. Just like he gave no credit to (to get back on topic) the Prussians.

What would he have to gain or lose by giving them credit? The more credit he gives to his higher up and lower down officers over the other nations the more good reputation he builds for himself back home. I've already said this like a parrot already what does he have to gain/lose?

If Wellington was to give equal credit to all of those involved over his own officers and nationality how would this help him in building up his political career? which he already seems to be considering after the Penisular war. His aim is pretty evident to impress the peoples of Britain and gain a foothold in their minds, which he does considering his success in nearly running for prime Minister twice (Turning down the second). By failing to mention or very little mention of the other allies he paints a picture of Britishness rulling the day, wether you consider this good or bad is irrelevant because of what he is trying to acheive from the British people, NOT the opinon of those outside of it.

It is very much arguable that the battle would of been so far from won without their support but does he absolutely need it in his immdiate or later future he is aiming for? The fact that he then gives credit later on makes what i'm saying pretty sensible. By leaving out the other nations he capivates the British people, with that captivation he secures his military AND political career for the foreseeable future. The battle may of been famous but was it enough to get him to where he was? or did he need support from his other officers and gentry in the armies at the time to firmly secure he place in his further political career?

Everything any human does is for the reasoning of Lose/Gain mentality, what does a person have to lose into making him do something, or what a person can gain by doing said action. There is NEVER an instant someone does something just because they can do it and it have no implication on their life or as to why they are doing it. For this instant his lack of credit giving or mention of such forces meant he could captivate and secure the trust and imaginations of the British people and officers to secure his Political and Military career for the Future.

I don't think Wellington actually thought lowly of any of the nations that took part nor their officers or armies, but when it came to a close he might of had his political mind already in plan, afterall the war was over now (It wouldn't start again for obvious reasons as to what was to come) and india where he was posted before had been secured ... its a lot of guess work, but say he is a snob? well i'd heavily disagree at calling him that but he was very tactically minded and a clever man in gaining exactly what he needed or wanted both politically and Militarily.

[Duuring]

Your point is? He did it for political reasons?

Well, no shit.

[Kator Viridian]

Your point is? He did it for political reasons?

Well, no shit.

So why would it be a "Problem" when he 'corrected' himself and all is well? So why exactly would he be a "Snob"? I would say again I think this is just your hatred of Britishness or British figures more than what is actually placed infront of you.

But thank you for backing up my point.

[Docm30]

Well it wasn't very rules Britannia at all, your just saying that with a lack of come back from the statements made, your psychology is a bit off i'd say and your analysis of past and present psychological thought processes is a bit bad. Learn the difference between how things were and how they are now and realise they are 2 different things entirely.

Your claims about British rulers always fighting on the front-lines (who was the last? Henry VII?), your claims about how brilliant Wellington was, your claims about how Briton are and always have been a proud people (which, by the bye, is totally untrue. I know a lot of Englishmen and they're certainly arrogant, but not proud).

Worst is the laziest of all defences: the claim that you can't judge people of the past by modern moral standards. Morality hasn't changed, especially not in the last 200 years, but I doubt it has even in the last 2000 years. There's still slavery in the world, there's still murder, there's still war, there's still prejudice, people still turn traitor and are loathed for it. If our morality was so much more enlightened none of this would be a problem.

So when you say I was all "Rule Britannia" did you ever take into fact that Wellington might of actually been good at what he did and actually does later in his life?

I never once suggested Wellington was not a competent general. I've even defended the man from Duuring's merciless attacks before.

I'll leave you to keep it on Topic as always duuring ... but you should know that National Identity should never come into a Neutral viewing of history by now.

Mayhap you should take thine own advice, O ye who pointlessly insists on mentioning that you are, in fact, British.

So why would it be a "Problem" when he 'corrected' himself and all is well? So why exactly would he be a "Snob"? I would say again I think this is just your hatred of Britishness or British figures more than what is actually placed infront of you.

You know, if there's one thing that I've learned from knowing so many Britons, it's that nobody hates the British more than the British. I swear they hate everyone from every county except the one they were born in and everyone born in the county but in a different area. And of course everyone hates the South-East, even people from there. That's not even getting into the different countries.

[Mr T]

Please, Docm, don't make assumptions of us Brits from a few douchebags, we're not all stereotypes. 

Now I'd appreciate it if we could get back on topic else I'll be forced to lock the thread.

[Ililsa]

Your claims about British rulers always fighting on the front-lines (who was the last? Henry VII?), your claims about how brilliant Wellington was, your claims about how Briton are and always have been a proud people (which, by the bye, is totally untrue. I know a lot of Englishmen and they're certainly arrogant, but not proud).

George II, at Dettingen. He was 60 at the time and lost control of his horse, which ran away.

About half an hour later he turned up again on foot.

I swear they hate everyone from every county except the one they were born in and everyone born in the county but in a different area.

What we hate most are people from the county right next to us.

Bloody Lancashire.

[Docm30]

Indeed. A good friend of mine from Yorkshire is rather fond of using the word Derbycunt to refer to his southern neighbours.