The Battle of Waterloo: Opening Moves (part 1/2)

[bigtimegaming1231]

what movie is this

[ipokeyouman]

lol the brits r going to war and still drinking b33r

[sushi81]

If those prussians never show up, it would of been a whole new history. One day, I'll travel back to time and change for Napoleon!!!

[Zappiss]

@sushi81 Everything was already lost in 1815. Try instead going back in time to 1812 and persuading Napoleon not to invade Russia. If he had got rid of his continental system (which was hurting France and its allies more than Britain) and stuck with what he had, then maybe the French domination of Europe could have been maintained. Stabbing his Spanish ally in the back and putting Jerome in charge was another costly mistake for Napoleon.

[mbdiddy]

@Zappiss are you my history teacher? I could have sworn he said that yesterday

[mbdiddy]

@Zappiss Like in exact words (seriously

[Napo124]

@Zappiss "Everything was lost": not so sure. Of course 1815's french army was not the 1805's french army. However, if Napoleon would have beaten Wellington and Blucher, he would have good opportunities to defeat russians and austrians on the french territory (where his famous 1814 campaign showed his adilities on this battlefield). Moreover he would have been supported by 30 000 added soldiers from Vendee, and of course, his old guard and Grouchy's corps.

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 Napoleon may have bought some time, but ultimately he was facing a determined, well-resourced and overwhelming coalition - Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain - that was completely set on his removal. There would have been no political truce in 1815 had he won at Waterloo - he would have had to fight another campaign, and another, and would have been removed eventually - he was facing four massive powers.

[Napo124]

@THthefirst If prussians didn't come to the battlefield, Napoleon would have good opportunities to win the battle and Waterloo campaign. If he won the campaign, he would have times to reorganise his army and the counrtyy. After this, it's impossible to say what would have happened. Napoleon was so suprising. Lot of people said that what he did was "impossible", but he did. Napoleon said "impossible is not french", don't say it ;)

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 But it's a pointless argument because the ONLY reason Wellington fought Waterloo was because he had a guarantee from Blucher that he would come to support him. If Wellington didn't have that promise, he wouldn't have fought the battle in the first place because, as you say, he knew he was facing a hammering. You must understand that by 1815, the major European powers wanted Napoleon gone, and he couldn't defeat 500,000 men from four major countries, inc Britain - the only superpower

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 The fact is that the coalition - Britain, a world superpower with huge financial resources, Russia, Prussia and Austria - simply would not allow Napoleon to stay on the throne after he escaped from Elba. He represented a massive threat to their security and had proven himself to be a warmongerer. The Allies would simply have raised army after army and eventually crushed Napoleon - like in 1814 at the battle of the nations.

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 You mention 30,000 troops from Vendee and Grouchy's troops etc, but compared to the 500,000 men the allies could muster, and the huge resources they had, plus the internal problems in France and the pro-Royalist factions, plus France's weakened economy affter 20 years of war and the disastrous Russia campaingn, it is fanciful to argue Napoleon could have succeeded - he was a genius, but he had peaked by 1814, let alone 1815.

[Napo124]

@THthefirst You know that Napoleon always fight forces highly superior in umber to him. But his strategy since 1796 has alwayas been to fight the ennemy point by point. As in 1815 he fights firt the prussians and then the english. As in 1814, he fights prussians, russians and austrians separetly. Of course, french economy was low, but AS other european economies. And contrary to the allied troops, he would have fight on HIS territory, so logistics and troops reeforcements would have been easier

[Napo124]

@Napo124 Concerning Waterloo, Grouchy stoped Blucher's arriere garde, but failed to stop the whole prussian army. if he woul have succeed, Napoleon would have certainly won the battle. As Wellington said it "I need blucher or the night, otherwise, I'm lost". So we can say that waterloo could have been won. From this, the 1815 campaigne could have been won too. Davout, the most brillant Napoleon's marshall, as war minister, was reorganising the country in order to it.

[Napo124]

I'm not an historian, nor a magician and because I'm french, my english is poor ^^ But Napoleon was not stupid. If he had any chance to success, he would have never try to fight. After Waterloo, he refused to continue the fight, because he knew that everything was lost. Without english and prussians in the campaign, Napoleon had chance to defeat russians and austrians. After this, we can't say what would have happened. Maybe allied countries would have decided to continue the fight, maybe not.

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 But think it through for a minute - Napoleon FAILED to fight the enemy point by point in 1814 at Leipzig, which is why he was defeated - the allies joined together at the battle of the nations (hence its name!). Not separate at all. And again, in 1815 he FAILED to fight the enemy one by one as planned, and allowed them to regroup together at Waterloo, which is the primary reason that he lost the war.

Why would it have been different in 1815 if he won Waterloo? He would have lost

[Napo124]

@THthefirst You are right, but in Leipzig, prussians, russians, austrians, sweden, saxons,... were too many. Napoleon failed because allied troops were together. In 1815, he didn't failed, allied troops were seperated. That's why Napoleon defeated prussians at Leipzig, and english at Quatre Bras. Waterloo would have been won if Grouchy would have succeed to fix Blucher. So things were ALREADY different compare to Leipzig :)

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 I don't understand how you can say in 1815 Napoleon didn't fail. He obviously did fail completely.  He lost the campaign. The main reason for losing Waterloo was that he FAILED to stop the allies joining together, that was the very reason he lost. So I don't understand your comment that the allies were separated and that Napoleon didn't fail - surely it is obvious that the opposite is ture.

[Napo124]

@THthefirst Before Waterloo, there was LIGNY. And this was an unbeleivable mistake from Blucher and Wellington to have been seperated. Napoleon SUCCEED to lead his troops quickly to Belgium to DEFEAT Blucher at Ligny while Wellington retreated at Quatre Bras. This was an excellent beginning. However, Grouchy didn't success to stop Blucher as Napoleon wanted. This was why he lost the campaign. But if Blucher was stop AS Napoleon wanted, the Belgium campaign was over for Wellington and Blucher.

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 The problem with your arguments is that you try to paint Napoleon's strategy as effective and successful, but acutally it was ineffective and disastrous. You mention Grouchy's failure, but Napoleon appointed Grouchy to his position. Napoleon also didn't advance on Quatre Bras after Ligny, but waited on the battlefield till 11am, allowing W to escape. You talk about "excellent beginnings" but who cares? Napoleon's strategy lost him the campaign, that is all that matters.

[Napo124]

@THthefirst You are right: who cares? Maybe you and me because we are talking about opportunities in case of Napoleon winning waterloo. History is History. We can't change the world and the facts. And we can't say what will have happen after a victory. I just wanted to show you that it's to easy to say "everything was lost anyway". Napoleon was maybe too ambitious, too self confident,... but he was not stupid. He would have never try to fight if "everything was already lost".

[THthefirst]

@Napo124 Well I care, because I am interested in the battle and I enjoy debating it. I guess you care too because you reply with interesting posts too.

I agree that Napoleon was not to be underestimated, but he was a shadow of his former self by 1815 and eventually, after 20 years of war, even Napoleon couldn't keep on fighting and winning against 500-600,000 british, spanish, italians, russians, prussians, austrians who all wanted him gone.

[2210ethan]

@sushi81

Perhaps, we'll never know.

[slizzler1]

00:01 * "Who gives salt to Marshal Soult?" -: "Our Atty!" * "Who gave Johnny Francois's jaw a jolt?" - : "Our Atty!" * "Who's the beak that'll peck Boney's bum?" - : "Our Atty!" *"Who makes the "Parlez-vous" to rouT?" - : "Our Atty!" * "Who's the boy with the hooky nose?" - : "Our Atty!" * "Who's the lad that leathers the French?" - : "Our Atty!" * "Who's the boy to kick Boney's arse?" - : "Our Attttttyyy !!!!"

[4unitedMAN]

The official French Newspaper, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his new Muslim name which was Aly Napoleon Bonaparte. He commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became known as General Abdullah-Jaques Menou, who later married an Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida. Few people are aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the victors

[randir14]

@4unitedMAN

Napoleon was not a muslim and you're a fucking idiot for saying so. If "history was written by the victors" they would have claimed he was a muslim as a way to further debase him and make it look like a victory of Christianity over Islam. Fuck you're stupid.

[DonMeaker]

@randir14 But Nappy did claim to be a Muslim when he was in Egypt. Of course he lied then...

[wetcanoedogs]

iroscoe--thanks for the info.i thought there was more to it that just showing up in a top hat to fight

and he must have been close to Wellington as he seems to very personal with him.i'll have a web search.

[wetcanoedogs]

who is the guy in the top hat?.and why is he not in uniform when he does seem to be some sort of general?

[iroscoe]

Its Thomas Picton your right he was a General his luggage didn't arrive in time for the battle so he fought and died in his civilian clothes .

[spinynorman230]

is the fat guy with the big hat napoleran? hes incredibly stupid to attack the right if thats were the guns are

[rangerbobcat]

@spinynorman230 Napoleon attacks the British right to drive them back onto Brussels and away from a juncture with the Prussian army. It is the Prussians joining the British on the battlefield that defeats Napoleon

[DonMeaker]

@rangerbobcat And the Belgians who defended a key part of the line, so actually it was the Belgians who defeated Nappy.

[sanjosesharksrock]

what is the name of this movie, i can't find it on IMDB.

[slizzler1]

'Waterloo'

-1970 - look in the top right of a yt clip for details about a clip

[raherecolston]

Yes, I've heard of Wellington referred to as ' Atty as well. The words spoken sound to me like :------- I dont need a white horse to puff me, by God! Who gives orders to Marshall Soult? old 'ooky! Who gives Johnny Francois a jolt old  'ooky! Who'se the beak that'll peck Boney's bum? old 'ooky! Who makes the parlez vous to run? old 'ooky! Who'se the boy with the hooky nose? old 'ooky! Who's the lad that leathers the French? old 'ooky! Who's the boy to kick boneys arse? old 'ooky!

[slizzler1]

yes- Arthur was- his name Arthur Wellesley of course- had the nickname 'atty'.

[biagiotti2006]

Why is Napoleon always portrayed as being short, it's well known that he was 5'7" which was average/above average for his times.

[MARccty]

the british are super sylish

[astridbelge]

the uniforms of this era are all  very dashing

on all sides

[joegoatman]

Can anyone tell me what the chanter is in the opening of this video? I've played it repeatedly but cannot understand it! Thanks!

[JamesBenwick]

Its a homage to the duke of Wellington from the British soldiers.

Who gives course to marshall soult? Our laddie, which is wellington.

Whos jon-jolly and jolly and jo? Our laddie.

Whos the beak that will kick bonys bum? Our laddie.

Who makes the parlez-vouz to run? Our laddie.

Whos the boy with the hooky nose? Our laddie.

Whos the lad that leathers the French? Our laddie.

Whos the boy that kicks bonys arse? Our laddie.

[RetardedPickle]

I thought they said atty?

[Faxe90Swe]

Just a honest question, no offense intended, but are they not saying "our Atty".

[slizzler1]

I've always been curious about this too- I actually did a bit of investigating to find out once and for all.

I went to a Movies site;

I can send you the link.

It has comments sections for each movie too.

There was your question there for the movie too and a bunch of answers; here's what I found.....

[slizzler1]

Quoting some comments from the movie's forum dialogue.

--Wellington was known as "our ATTY," as "atty" was a familiar form of "Arthur."

--He was actually said to have been known to his troops as "the Bugger that beats

the French,"

Wellington was also known as "Wellie".

[ThePhantomMajor]

also Nosey ...

[slizzler1]

yes-that too .....

[slizzler1]

I suppose it's in the dvd movies on screen transcript too; I think this is correct-I corrected a couple of things one forum commenter said was in the chanting- he was supposedly a Japanese fan and made errors like;

----"Who'll beat and peck Boney's bum?"

[JamesBenwick]

Wellington detached 17,000 of the 1st

Netherlands division and 28 guns under Prince Frederick to nearby Hal and acted as a stratgic flank guard. They took no part in the battle of Waterloo.

[slizzler1]

Additionally, along with the 1st Netherland Div. in that group of 17,000 troops was the 4th Division except for its commander Colville and Mitchell's 4th brigade which fought at Waterloo. Thus you'd have the other 2 brigades of that division at Hal which was the 6th Brit. brigade under Gen.Johnstone, and the Gen.Lyon's 6th Hanoverian Brig. Rettburg's Hanov. battery went to Waterloo too.

[FearNoneButGod]

As far as is known he only ever visited the small Somerset town of Wllington once, it ended in a drunken riot!Some antiquitarian suggested that his family may have their origins in Somerset possibly Wells presumably he chose Wellington because he liked the name.Lovely art deco cinema in Wellington called the Wellesley!

[FearNoneButGod]

bingham blood is right, althogh he was originally known as Arthur Wesley, he changed it to Wellesley to avoid being associated with the firebrand Methodist preacher.

[titi280395faitpitier]

Vive la France!

[AngloSaxonBastart]

Arther Wellsley, Duke of Wellington = British Legend.

[binghamblood]

Who cares where Wellington was born? Wellington himself said, "Because one is born in a stable, it does not make one a horse" when someone dared to suggest he was Irish. You don't have to be born in a country to love it and be loyal to it. Home is where the heart is :0) .

[binghamblood]

My point was that he considered himself English. Indeed, he was ashamed to be Irish - he even forbade his friends to bring the subject up. Whether the Irish like it or not, Wellington considered himself English. Perhaps that's a reflection on Ireland at the time rather than "English nationalists" today. Anyway, he was a protestant, it's not surprising that he regarded his fellow (catholic) Irishmen and women with contempt and hated to be associated with them - such were the times he lived in.

[slizzler1]

My entire point is;

regardless of how much he considers himself english nobility /gentry..........

Wellington was born in Ireland and he WAS Irish -

it's only dumbwit english ultra-nationalists that think Irish are 2nd class citizens. A I mention it just to see them get pissy for no reason at all. So what if he's Irish born.The rest of the english and the world love the Irish and even see the Irish very favourably indeed. Wellington was an Irishman -pretending .

[slizzler1]

@binghamblood

he was Irish- why do nationalist crybabies hate the fact Wellington who was born in Ireland being mentioned as Irish. Home is where the heart is and where someone was born is simply their real nationality.

[bengusandlex]

@slizzler1 You're the only cry baby throwing his toys out of the pram about Wellington's birth. Fact is he was British, BRITISH! And there's no getting away from that fact. bingham is quite correct, home is where the heart is, and if you're against that then you're against Jamaicans in England today that call themselves English, because that's exactly what you're saying, can't have it both ways.

[slizzler1]

@bengusandlex

Hey there crybaby- finished whining to Bengus and Lex about the meanie slizzler yet.... you stupid prick,

I always said Wellington was British- why are you whining like a dribbly sourpuss thinking I'm anti-British. All I've added was that he was Irish by birth..... which as predicted burns your weenie balls up for reasons only you nationalist goons only understand.

Anyone born in England is English- anyone with British citizenship is British +being born Jamaican too is Jamaican

[slizzler1]

@bengusandlex

So there you go sh*t-for-brains.... that is exactly how it works both ways;

A Jamaican/ born in Jamaica - with British citizenship is British too.

Wellington- born in Ireland- was also British.... he can claim to be English, but he was Irish born....

I think that should be simple- even for wankers who even in adult life write 'would OF'. Tell me please that you are not an airline pilot.

[grae707]

Its because Wellington was a Irish Protestant land owner who hated farming.Like alot of Irish history they cover up ...just look at the lads who fought in ww1 no memorials to the dead in Irland fighting for King and country.

[MarquessofBath]

Whos the one that makes the parlez vous to run!

[florinu123]

Napoleon is made to look like a fat joke in this movie.

[slizzler1]

florinu- he was a 'fat joke' at this time in his life -read descriptions of his appearance by those that saw him [French]-they describe him literally just like that. He was not the charming looking dynamic person of a few years before.

[johnderekcook]

if the french had charged the squares a few more times they would have broken

[DanWelshy86]

The issue is whether Napoleon thought that losing any more men by marching columns would cripple him.....marching in columns is overrated anyway. Can't beat a good line with flanks.

[batalion666]

he should destroy completly prussians two days earlier,cut english army from the rear and they should made first Dunkirk

[65CL]

THat could have been awesome for military history records. The French, which turned out to be on the losing side at the end of the Dunkirk evacuation; could have at least have the glory of defeating both the future German army first and the British later.

[angrycaveman]

but what happened?

[slizzler1]

Wellington would no doubt have retreated in that situation, but remember he had strong forces covering the coastal areas in anticipation of such a strategy by Napoleon.

[matt2house]

they're shouting our atty, plus wellington was irish

[slizzler1]

why stupid people give thumbs down to matt2house for stating the true fact that Wellington was born in Ireland.

[matt2house]

cos they're ignorant about their history i would say.

[TrotseHollander]

Als jullie Engelsen maar nooit vergeten, dat jullie na te zijn verslagen door de oude trotse Hollanders, alles van hen copieërden. Die laffe zwakbegaafde Willem III gaf jullie wat jullie wilden. De zegevierende Hollandse admiralen, moesten onder het commando staan van de verslagen Engelse admiralen, in vlootverbanden van 3 Hollandse schepen tegen 5 Engelse schepen. In 'n paar jaar tijd was Holland zijn macht kwijt en was Groot-Brittannië opeens de sterkste. Geef maar toe?

[ijsdrop]

"... zonder de heldfhaftige vastberadenheid van de Prins van Oranje, die met een handjevol manschappen gedurfd heeft om zijn positie bij Quatre-Bras in te nemen, had ik het Engelse leger zonder slag of stoot overwonnen en was ik net zoals bij Friedland als overwinnaar naar voren gekomen."

Napoleon

[garythegit]

the redcoats are talking in a variety of regional accents including cockney- to better represent the 'scum of the earth' character of the troops ;) plus the 19th century english, can make it hard to understand. but these were real recorded battle cries!

[jwul004]

what bloody dialect of english are the redcoats talking? Couldn't understand a word they said.

[matt2house]

irish of course, altho not all of the redcoats are english much of em were irish, over quarter of million soldiers in the british army were irish. hence the the soldiers talkin in a would be irish accent.

[DeltaX01]

Thats funny, since there was only 200,000 soldiers in the British Army at this time. And somehow 250,000 of them were Irish? Don't think so. They are talking in, battle cries of sorts.

[matt2house]

it's true, much of the redcoats were irish....and if u dont still believe me go and buy a book called the redcoats by richard holmes.

[DeltaX01]

there were never a quarter of a million irish in the army, because the army never peaked more than 250,000. While its true there were a vast amount of irishmen in the army, the majority in part were English.

[matt2house]

not exactly, cos you have the scots and the welsh to consider m8.

[DeltaX01]

aye certainly so. Troops from a scots regiment that was captured at the Battle of Chippawa contained 22 Irishmen, only 8 were Scottish. What are the redcoats actually yelling?

[thatbritishlad]

if you go check most websites the gist is that the redcoats excluding forigen teritorys was about 55% english 30% irish 10% scotish and 5% welsh

[shangxuande]

can you tell this "battle of waterloo" is flimed at which year? I really loved this and want to get one like this.

[krips22]

The movie is "waterloo" filmed in 1970.