Battle of Waterloo

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The anniversary of Waterloo today got me thinking, about how quickly things move Militarily.

 

To think that within exactly 100 years...we would be flying aircraft... dropping Bombs...and scything down Soldiers in their thousands in just one day!...The Horse has gone from the battlefield, to be replaced by Tanks (for which I am sure they are grateful)...and columns of Red and Blue dressed soldiers, firing 3 rounds a minute...have far less firepower than a single soldier with a Machine gun.

 

As for the future...the Nano-suit is now within reach...where soldiers will no longer even be visible!...... I wonder if someday, it will be utterly futile putting soldiers up against each other at all!?

 

Maybe, in some bizzare way...the fact that millions have been slain due to the development of more powerful weapons, that the human race will eventually no longer wage all out war...as it will be utterly pointless?

 

(Just a thought over my morning Tea and Toast!) :yes:

Edited June 18, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[Check Six 2]

UK_Widowmaker,

 

Yes, all that improvement indeed. Tracked robotic vehicles with potent machine guns sent to bother the other side a bit, "smart" bombs that can enter through the bedroom window, turn right at the end of the corrdor, and smite a man when he's on the kazi reading the morning paper! Just not cricket eh wot?

 

The human race is at its most inventive when we are attempting to find out better ways to kill each other.

 

As Patton put it..."No bastard EVER won a war by dying for his country...you win a war by making some OTHER poor dumb bastard die for HIS country!" Good on ya ol' blood and guts. Brings a tear to my eye.

[themightysrc 5]

"scything down Soldiers in their thousands in just one day!"

 

Err... is it worth pointing out that that's exactly what happened at Waterloo...and Borodino, Wagram, Poltava, Ramilles, Breitenfeld, Towton, Crecy, Manzicourt, Teutoberger Wald, Cannae, etc, etc?

[Pappy55 1]

I have to say if it was not for the outbreak of world war one and two I think we would only now be getting to grips with jet technology..

 

Look at ww2 closed cockpits were a new thing and we wnet from the last generation of biplanes to the first jets and presurised interior. which also brought in combustion to advanded rocketry levels, which in turn turned eyes to space and the moon.

 

Technology always moves alot a hell of a lot fater in wartime..

 

Weather we like it or not while there are humans there will always be jelousy and geed, so there will always be war..

 

"All of this has happened before, All of this will happen again"

[Hasse Wind 46]

Great topic, Widowmaker.

 

It is true that battles in the age of musket (and the sword before that) were very bloody affairs. Casualty figures of 20-30% per side were quite normal for centuries. For example, many battles of the Napoleonic era caused much more casualties in a single day than was common during WW1. But the difference before WW1 was that battles didn't last for weeks and months like they did in the Great War - the armies bled each other white for a day or two, and then retired to recover their losses for months even. And large scale fighting usually ended for the winter as troops retired to their quarters. WW1 made fighting and killing a 24/7 business and caused a terrible amount of casualties over a long period of time. And of course there were many bloody single days reminiscent of old times in WW1, like the first day at Somme, when units suffered heavy casualties in a few hours.

 

Technological development really quickened during the 19th century. The weapons they used at Waterloo mostly wouldn't have been anything special a century earlier, but try to imagine going to war in 1914 with flintlock muskets - a 100 years made a huge difference.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

"scything down Soldiers in their thousands in just one day!"

 

Err... is it worth pointing out that that's exactly what happened at Waterloo...and Borodino, Wagram, Poltava, Ramilles, Breitenfeld, Towton, Crecy, Manzicourt, Teutoberger Wald, Cannae, etc, etc?

 

Oh yes, very true of course...but I think Hasse Wind has put what I meant better than I did..in that battles in the 20th Century were a much more drawn out affair...with heavy casualties over a longer period, with of course..many many more civilian casualties

 

Out of interest..here is an interesting site!....The 42nd Highlanders at the Battle of Waterloo only lost 6 Officers and 44 men..which surprised me...though I don't know why!

 

http://www.britishbattles.com/

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

From that website...a great piece about the Battle of Agincourt....

 

As the army entered the valley beyond the town, the scouts came riding back at speed with the news that an immense army blocked the road. The French had managed to march past the English and cut across their route during the delay on the Somme.

 

A Welsh man-at-arms, David Gambe, on being questioned by King Henry as to the size of the French army, said “There are enough to kill, enough to capture and enough to run away.”

 

Sounds like something General Patton would have said!!!

[Blackdogkt 0]

Interesting topic. As for the arms race making it futile to wage wars in the future, the only way this would happen if everyone had similar weaponry. That's why the cold war superpowers didn't have a nuclear exchange, sadly mutually assured destruction is the only reliable deterrence.

 

I think that as long as one side has a technology advantage in arms wars will continue to happen, no matter the advanced state of weapons. Just look at casualty figures during the early part of war in Iraq leading up to the occupation of the country. Coalition might have lost a few thousand, the Iraqis lost hundreds of thousand in the first few days. The advanced state of weaponry didn't prevent the war from happening, simply because one side had such a huge advantage.

 

The main counterbalancing act to a technological advantage is irregular warfare and a disregard for own casualties. This is tied to a lot of other factors though, mainly social. A western society is unwilling to accept large numbers of friendly casualties in comparison to a less developed country, simply because of economic affluence and the higher standard of living that goes along with it.

 

In general, this approach of "winning after losing" has proven to work through the ages by making it costly for the opponent, not so much in terms of relative bodycounts, tactical wins or economy but in terms of what one's social background is willing to consider as an acceptable loss. That's why it's not good to get your opponent in a corner where he's got nothing to live for and nothing to lose, a man with no family, no prospects of a peaceful life or economical well being, not even access to amenities considered essential to us like running water or electricity is so backed up that will probably disregard any notion of self-preservation. He's lost anyway, so he might as well risk dying if that means he has even a slim chance of getting rid of a foreign occupation force.

 

That disregard for personal safety (within reasonable boundaries, not a la charge of the light brigade worthless massacre of manpower) makes each soldier that much more effective. The whole approach is something like this..."we can't stop you from occupying our territories, but we'll make sure you bleed dry while trying to keep them". The Russians did it against Napoleon, the Soviets against Wermacht, the Vietkong and North Vietnam against the US (where the US won probably 100% of the battles in a tactical aspect but still lost the war), the Afghans against the Soviets, and now it's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan against the coalition forces.

 

All in all, a very interesting and often overlooked aspect of warfare.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Yes... It's an interesting subject.

What has struck me, by looking at it more closely, is numbers / Weaponry don't necessarily win battles! (certainly not, as an example.. during the 100 yrs War)

 

Agincourt and Crecy spring to mind.

 

What I fail to understand is why the French did so badly..was it bad tactics and in-fighting amongst the French Nobles?....

They were well equipped, and every bit as good as the English...but were soundly beaten.

(With 4,000 against between 40-80,000...it should have been a walkover!)

 

I know the Longbow has gone down in History as the Super Weapon of the age, but it would appear it was not the 'Armour Busting' weapon it has been made out to be...and the Ploughed fields clogging mud at Agincourt is well documented...but it defies logic to me....

 

I love History!..it creates many more questions than answers!

[OvS 8]

I'm jotting in here as I didn't read the entire thread...but one thing large scale battles like these and all throughout history have provided is population control. As hard as that is to swallow, and maybe not a very good point to make, it is the truth.

 

We have not had a global war since WWII... although it looks like Korea might be looking for one, hopefully not... but without them, the world's population is growing exponentially. So as bad as they are, and as much as we all hope and pray to avoid them, and remain peaceful. It is a balancing factor, for good or bad. Think of how over populated the Earth would be today without WWI and WWII.

 

Just a thought.... certainly NOT a reason to have a war.

 

OvS

 

PS... to study battlefield tactis is to learn about the Roman Legion. The best there was... them and the Spartans. No better soldiers on the planet for their time and possible all over until the rifled barrel became the weapon of standard. A musket was about as useful as a short range crossbow.. hit or miss at best. The American Civil war was to the Rifle as WWI was to the MG. Technology outclassed tactics and produced up-close blood-baths.

[Dej 17]

Yes... It's an interesting subject.

What has struck me, by looking at it more closely, is numbers / Weaponry don't necessarily win battles! (certainly not, as an example.. during the 100 yrs War)

 

Agincourt and Crecy spring to mind.

 

What I fail to understand is why the French did so badly..was it bad tactics and in-fighting amongst the French Nobles?....

They were well equipped, and every bit as good as the English...but were soundly beaten.

(With 4,000 against between 40-80,000...it should have been a walkover!)

 

I know the Longbow has gone down in History as the Super Weapon of the age, but it would appear it was not the 'Armour Busting' weapon it has been made out to be...and the Ploughed fields clogging mud at Agincourt is well documented...but it defies logic to me....

 

I love History!..it creates many more questions than answers!

 

I don't think it was the longbow per se (although the number of notched and loosed per minute required of a bowman by English feudal law strikes a parallel with the British Regulars at First Ypres and their 'fifteen rounds rapid' that caused the Germans to think we had a surfeit of MGs) so much as the disruption it caused the French line by dropping the front ranks in the path of the rear... they trampled themselves to defeat.

 

Just as in a furball, sometimes it's better to be fewer in a tight space because your enemy causes himself problems by his own numbers whereas you don't have to worry too much about what you're shooting at.

[Blackdogkt 0]

I don't think it was the longbow per se (although the number of notched and loosed per minute required of a bowman by English feudal law strikes a parallel with the British Regulars at First Ypres and their 'fifteen rounds rapid' that caused the Germans to think we had a surfeit of MGs) so much as the disruption it caused the French line by dropping the front ranks in the path of the rear... they trampled themselves to defeat.

 

Just as in a furball, sometimes it's better to be fewer in a tight space because your enemy causes himself problems by his own numbers whereas you don't have to worry too much about what you're shooting at.

 

Since Spartans have been mentioned, we can call this the "Thermopylae effect"

 

On a serious note, i've been to the site of that battle, it's on the main highway connecting northern Greece to Athens. After all those years of soil depositing and increasing land mass the area is not that small nowadays, it's certainly enough to maneuver around 300 men who are standing in close formation. However, judging from a monument in my home town that was built right next to the sea 500-600 years ago and now stands dozens of meters from it, maybe that effect is so pronounced that indeed it was a very narrow pass back then and millenia of soil deposits formed the rest of the plateau. There's also quite hilly terrain opposite the sea bank as well.

 

First time i passed through that spot on a bus it didn't really register with me what a statue of a superhumanly tall hoplite was doing right next to the highway, but then i immediately remembered my history lessons from elementary school. The Persian wars was my favorite subject :yes:

[von Baur 54]

The real key here, Widowmaker, is the thought that a weapon will make war so horrible to contemplate that reasonable men will find ways to avoid war. The problem is that that's what Hiram Maxim thought about his machine gun (didn't quite work out that way). I've heard that the Wright brothers correctly anticipated their airplane's potential effect on the conduct of war. But they believed the same thing, that with airplanes able to watch your every move or unleash weapons from an untouchable altitude it would be pointless to wage war to begin with. Gatling and his multi-barreled gun, same thing. I have no idea how many inventions were created "to make war impractical" that were soon after used to make war more terrible, but I'm sure there are hundreds or maybe thousands.

 

Kind of funny that I saw this tonight. On my way home from work I began thinking about the old song "One Tin Soldier". Any of you too young to remember it should look up the lyrics. Very powerful.

[Hasse Wind 46]

The Spartans always get all the glory for the battle of Thermopylae, but we mustn't forget the fact that there were also other Hellenic troops (Thespians, Thebans and a bunch of others whose names I've forgotten) there at least three, maybe four times the Spartan's number. Without them, the Spartans wouldn't have had enough men to hold their ground, no matter how elite they were.

 

The effect of two world wars on population growth has been very limited. For example, after WW1 there was much talk about the lost generations, but in reality all that bloodshed did little to limit the growth of population in Europe and the rest of the world. Local effect could of course be severe, like some villages losing a terrible amount of young men, but if we look at the whole picture, the effect wasn't serious. Disease has always been a more deadly form of population control than war, the Black Death for example devastated the whole population of Europe like no war has ever done. And after WW2, there was a huge population boom all over the world (I suspect some OFFers here were born during that boom! :yes: )

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Ah yes, the Spartans (sadly, their memory somewhat eroded by that awful film '300')...what a pile of crap that was!

As has been noted, Disease (and no doubt hanging in the wings...Famine) may well be the future problem of man...The four horsemen are always looking for new ways to kick our asses!!

[Check Six 2]

PS... to study battlefield tactis is to learn about the Roman Legion. The best there was... them and the Spartans. No better soldiers on the planet for their time and possible all over until the rifled barrel became the weapon of standard. A musket was about as useful as a short range crossbow.. hit or miss at best. The American Civil war was to the Rifle as WWI was to the MG. Technology outclassed tactics and produced up-close blood-baths.

 

'Bout two millenia ago, some guy with the name of Sun Tzu wrote a treatise on "the Art of War" about the previous millenia or so of tribal warfare amongst the warlords of China. It is a standard text in every military library on the planet, and required reading in most.

 

I'm not saying the Roman Legion didn't know their stuff...they clearly did. They established armies that were regimented and trained daily, and were quite an unstoppable force in their day. The mention of Spartans was warranted too...them guys could pick a fight with the best of them (they were the best of them!).

 

To study Sun Tzu is to study tactics. That chap knew his stuff. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. They utilise his tactics for hostile business takeovers in today's boardrooms etc. Like Boelcke's Dicta, well thought out tactics are indeed timeless. Sun Tzu mentions about avoiding battle in marshy land, as your equipment may rot, and that sort of advice is kinda outdated not, but most of his tactics are very valid even in today's battlefields.

[Hauksbee 103]

What I fail to understand is why the French did so badly..was it bad tactics and in-fighting amongst the French Nobles?....

 

Excenent question. I saw a great explanation for Agincourt. The longbow had little to do with either the English victory, or the French defeat. It involved a bit of replicating, but went this way:

 

Two anthropologists/historians went to the battlefield. They were heartened by the fact that the French countryside, and the villages that bordered the battlefield hadn't changed all that much. At least the battlefield wasn't under three condos and a strip mall. With a metal detector, they started combing the ground. After a day or so, they had a small collection of metal bits, and one or two of them were corroded arrowheads. It was then acertained that the steel was a common, rather soft variety, and ubiqutious at the time. The style of arrowhead was a 'Bodkin Point'. It was square in cross-section, like a stretched-out pyramid and had a socket in the base to press-fit the shaft into.

 

Then off to a museum to measure and build a longbow, then a high-speed camera to record the velocity of the arrow at release, and then calculate the force of impact. Then test against a typical piece of armor steel . Two issues popped up: First, the arrow steel was comparitively soft [these arrow heads were a gov't contract, hammered out fast for commoners use] and Second, the French armor was very good, as their steel had a much higher carbon content. [Armor was a personal investment by aristos.]

 

Once the pieces were in place, the arrow steel was evaluated with a drop-test. In every test, the tip bent, the sample steel plate was never penetrated. So it appears as though the Lawrence Olivier version of Agincourt, [mounted knights dying by the hundreds]never took place. So what did?

 

When the authors looked at the Order of Battle, as recorded by the French, the attack called for a cavalry charge, then when they had done, and returned, Italian cross-bow men were to unleash a few volleys [which could be pretty nasty] and then the main body was to move forward. However; the main body consisted of dismounted knights.

 

In the event, the cavalry charged, once. Then as the cross-bow men were getting ready, they were shouldered aside by the impatient knighthood and the battle was on. The French declined to attack on a broad front, each knight pressed to the center to come to grips with Henry and his Paladins. That's where the glory was. And the money. You got glory for mighty feats of arms, not for bashing serfs. And the point of knightly combat was not to kill your opponents, but to defeat, capture and ransom them.

 

So now there's this huge mass of knighthood, packed together to the point where it was virtually impossible to raise your arms, slipping, sliding in the gooey, clay mud. [it had rained heavily] If you fell, you were trod upon. Then it got really bad.

 

The bowmen, and men-at-arms on the flanks [behind the sharpened stakes] folded in on the knights and enveloped them. These men were not interested in ransom [or even permitted to ransom] Each carried an all-purpose knife [more like a small sword/machete] for cutting and sharpening stakes, cooking, etc., and heavy mallets for driving stakes. [like a six-pound sledgehammer] The mallets crushed helmets and skulls and knights that went down had blades slipped 'tween armor plates. The packed-in knights never had a chance.

 

But the longbow sat on the sidelines and watched.

[SirMike1983 3]

While Agincourt is mentioned here along with feats of technology in war-- it should also be remembered that Henry V was one of the most talented siege gunners of his age. He was actually quite ahead of his time in arranging cannon for siege. While he is forever linked to longbowmen, he actually was more remarkable in his time for the ability to use cannons. People tend to think of him as a great medieval king in the sense of the way a medieval knight would fight. On the contrary he had a much more modern and wide-reaching vision than popular memory suggests.

Edited June 19, 2009 by SirMike1983

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Fascinating stuff guys..I am enjoying reading all your posts!

Putting aside the weapons and tactics of Agincourt, leaves you wondering what must have been going on in the minds of the people who fought on that day!

 

The French must have felt supremely confident at the start, with their superior arms, their well fed belly's and the knowledge that they fought on their 'home turf' (to say nothing of their vast numerical superiority.)

 

The English / Welsh soldiers...cold, sick, under nourished and hugely outnumbered with little chance of having any mercy shown if captured (certainly not the Bowmen and other 'peasants')...god.. One cannot imagine the feelings they must have felt.

 

Although those arrows probably didn't kill vast numbers of French Men-at-Arms... it must have been very demoralising having the sky darken with clouds of them raining down on you.

 

The English I imagine, would have fought with savage desperation on that day...with nothing to lose..and the closing part of the Battle, with the sight of trapped Knights having their visors wrenched open, to be stabbed in the face with daggers as they lay pinned in the mud under dead horses and other knights, is too horrific to comprehend.

 

Seems like (in much the same way that Hollywood does) .. our very own Shakespeare used some 'artistic licence' with the facts.

[Dej 17]

Seems like (in much the same way that Hollywood does) .. our very own Shakespeare used some 'artistic licence' with the facts.

 

Of course, gotta pack 'em in. Not just like Hollywood either also like the tabloids. Will had patronage to consider, working under a Tudor monarch he had to be selective on how he painted the Plantagenets, some were in favour, others not. So the Henrys do okay, excepting ol' Feeblebrain, but Dicky II gets bad press and Dicky III is given a real makeover so that Bessie's grandad gets to be a hero rescuing England from a monster.

 

The media of the day has always manipulated public opinion.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Of course, gotta pack 'em in. Not just like Hollywood either also like the tabloids. Will had patronage to consider, working under a Tudor monarch he had to be selective on how he painted the Plantagenets, some were in favour, others not. So the Henrys do okay, excepting ol' Feeblebrain, but Dicky II gets bad press and Dicky III is given a real makeover so that Bessie's grandad gets to be a hero rescuing England from a monster.

 

The media of the day has always manipulated public opinion.

 

Indeed!

 

I sometimes feel that history is not taken quite as seriously these days, in Schools...and that there is a tendancy to sweep it all under the carpet somewhat...almost as if we are ashamed of what our ancestors did.

The medieval period is a classic example of this.

 

The fact that Chivalry was born at this time (Chivalry...now there is a word that get's a lot of people rolling their eyes)...but it was the one thing that dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages...was probably the embryonic birth of the Geneva Convention..and indeed Democracy itself (or at least it's re-birth from the Greek and Roman eras)

 

When I was at school...the really 'Interesting parts of history' were quickly brushed over...and we spent eons learning about the Industrial revolution!..(more in part to the Teacher we had being more interested in that I suspect!)

 

It had the effect of boring us all silly!...we wanted to learn about Romans, Knights and indeed WW1 Aerial Combat damn it!...but no...George Stephenson, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was all we got! (yawn)...thank god for those History books in the Library, which had pictures and stories of proper history!...battles, bloodshed and cruel Murders!...Just what a nine yr old boy wants to learn about!..haha

 

Today, I think the Horrible Histories series of books are fantastic for Children!...they have all the juicy nastiness that youngsters love!..... I hope some of them go on to enjoy the subject as much as I have!....I am sure that most of us here who fly BHaH have a deep fascination with History...and I have seen this come through from people who have commented on this thread!

 

It is after all, what has made you and me, the people we are today!..the people who lived at the time of Agincourt, are our families...our relatives.. going back in time... which I find the most interesting....and in the great scheme of things...it was just yesterday.

Edited June 20, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[Hasse Wind 46]

I am sure that most of us here who fly BHaH have a deep fascination with History...and I have seen this come through from people who have commented on this thread!

 

I have no doubt that people who love WW1 sims are also interested in history. Heck, I almost became a history teacher until the medical profession emerged victorious from the battle of 'What will I do when I grow up?', so to speak... Now studying history is just one of my hobbies (the other hobby is dying in OFF! I think I've become very good at it...)

[Dej 17]

It is after all, what has made you and me, the people we are today!..the people who lived at the time of Agincourt, are our families...our relatives.. going back in time... which I find the most interesting....and in the great scheme of things...it was just yesterday.

 

Yep. We should enter the future looking backwards.