There has
already been a lot of material in the media and other places about the 200th
Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.
Inevitably, the sound of axes being ground rises above the clamour as
well as the noise of more or less informed opinion as to it all.
There is no
doubt that it was a critical event in the history of Europe and to some extent
has defined the history and perception of Europe in the 19th Century. What is striking is how much else was going
on in different places which we have lost sight of.
This could
take a long post to do a tour of all these and what were the consequences and
effects. We could start, for example
with the major campaign in Nepal in 1815 in which the HEICS, agents for the
British Government decided to nibble away at the edges of the once mighty
Chinese Empire.
But something
else is lost sight of regarding the battle because the attention is on the main
commanders and others are relegated to supporting or less consideration. Just who were the officers on whom Wellington
had to rely in the British Army?
If you want a long read try this book The Roll of Waterloo from the
archives. It is a list of all the
officers of the British Army engaged in the battle with a lot of supporting
information. It helps to know your
military history and how an army functions, but it does tell you a lot about
them and their capabilities.
What men they
were. Sadly, we do not have the same for
the Other Ranks but have to pick this up in bits and pieces from other
sources. But I have looked at the Muster
Rolls for a number of regiments with an eye to who were the men and what they
could do.
The later
canards about the men who officered the Army and those who served in the ranks
need to be forgotten. The idea that the
rankers were drawn from the slums and gaols is rubbish whatever might have been
said about some of their habits.
Such men would
never have lasted. My reading is that they
were a large sample of the ordinary working population. Calculation of the proportion of the male
population engaged over the many years of war suggest a higher rate than that
during either the First or Second World Wars.
Yes, many were
labourers or in other trades and liked a pint or gallon and could be a rough
old lot when annoyed. But they were good
ordinary men. Similarly the officers
were not fools or fops, such officers would not have lasted or survived.
There were
very many hardened, able, experienced men who knew what they were doing and how
to do it. Indeed the commissions were
bought and class mattered, but in the field of battle all are equal and these
officers were more than up to it as were their men.
We should
remember the battle for what it was and the men for who and what they were. Wellington's combined force was fighting for a Europe of
peoples and not one dominated by a French elite.
"What is striking is how much else was going on in different places which we have lost sight of."
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is because we could study these events for our whole lives yet only grasp part of its complexity.
Not only that, but it can't be presented to an uninformed audience so simplification, often gross simplification is how it is done and how it ends up being perceived.