just 128,000, having to defeat every single one of those armies united or separated
would have been practically impossible and ultimate defeat was (to again coin
that hated word) inevitable. But that to me is what makes Waterloo so glorious.
Napoleon and his Marshals were aware of this predicament and yet still went into
battle committed and proud. This was a mighty showdown between an undefeated
British Field Marshal and a small Corsican ex-artillery sergeant who had cowed
the major powers of Europe.
But this is where my disappointment comes in. In what should have been his
finest display of brilliance, Napoleon’s strategic decisions were generic and
predictable. Wellington expressed a similar sense of regret in a letter to a comrade
following the battle saying “Napoleon did not manoeuvre at all. He just moved
forward in the old style.” There was none of the energy and spirit of a Napoleon
which had outwitted and obliterated two Emperors at Austerlitz (1805), or the
Napoleon who had steamrolled over the Austrians in the Italian Campaign (1794).
As much as I love Napoleon for the great historical and military figure he is, at
Waterloo he disappointed me. Wellington defeated him in the same way he had
beaten back all his other marshals – through the steady clockwork volleys of
redcoats. Nevertheless, let’s celebrate a British victory and let’s celebrate a
German victory, but let’s also not forget to pay tribute to a small Corsican artillery
sergeant who went down fighting and proud after his crusade to spread the liberal values of Revolutionary France across Europe at this year’s 200 th anniversary of
the Battle of Waterloo.
Note: I am greatly indebted to the fantastic Osprey book “Waterloo: The Decisive Victory – 200 th Anniversary Edition” edited by Colonel Nick Lipscombe but is a collaborative effort by
all the leading Napoleonic experts to establish what truly occurred at Waterloo. If any of you
are interested, a copy is available in the Wodehouse Library.
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker