Post: #1

200 years ago today, the Battle of Waterloo was fought. It was an iconic moment in history, though one which I think is somewhat overrated in importance (I believe Napoleon would have been ultimately defeated, and relatively quickly, regardless of the outcome of the battle).

Still, it's a remarkably famous moment in history, and indicative of things to come - after 25 years of constant warfare, Europe entered a century of peace and prosperity until the outbreak of World War I. A lot of what we have today given to us by the industrial revolution is the result of that long period of peace.

It's also a symbol of final, decisive defeat, and I remarked on my latest live stream/podcast that it's our job today to make the social justice freaks meet their Waterloo.

It was also the last hurrah of the gunpowder era of warfare in the West, the last of the old, essentially, before the industrial revolution changed it all forever, removing in some ways some human factors to warfare and making it far grimmer. World War I was the natural result.

I really wished I could have gone to the reenactments taking place in Belgium. I wonder if anyone here has gone?

So discuss the battle, its consequences, and its symbolism. Do you think Napoleon could have won? What were his mistakes and what did the allies do right? Wellington won by the skin of his teeth, even with all the blunders Napoleon made.

Post: #2

In the United Kingdom they think it is because of them that the Battle of Waterloo was won by the English/Dutch. In reality it was a small brave part of the Dutch army (20 000 men) that fought Napoleon so the English had time to gather their troops.

It is a Dutch victory!



The man on the hospital bed is the young version of the later king William II of the Netherlands.

Post: #3

Don't forget Blücher who headed up the Prussian forces.

Post: #4

WEllington simply outfoxed Napoleon by putting the bulk of his army behind the ridge. He was a master of using the terrain. In fact he chose the battlefield.

Also, Napoleon's feared "Old Guard", his elite troops, broke and ran after their charge. That was effectively Napoleon's last reserves at that point the battle was lost, although the Prussians may have trapped the French, its possible napoleon may have lost the battle yet managed to disengage his forces and saved the bulk of his army has the Prussians not arrived. No doubt though that this was a British "thin red line" victory.

Post: #5

Wellington was nearly broken though. If Napoleon hadn't have wasted so many troops in attacking Hougemont and struck right after he took La Haye Sainte (and had put someone other than Ney in charge of field operations), he very well might have won the day.

Speaking of La Haye Sainte, I might do an ROK article about the King's German Legion who held it against such massive odds. Pure grit and bravery.

Post: #6

Most battles and turning points in history usually involve one party "nearly" having something or other happen.


I enjoyed my trip to Waterloo. There's something magical about historic battlefields that connects with the soul.

Post: #7

Fortifying the farm houses was a genius move by Wellington. It meant that Napoleon could not advance till they were neutralised and meant he lost a lot of troops trying to take those positions while under heavy fire from both the positions and Wellingtons main line.

Post: #8

I always told that Waterloo was more than a battle, a historical event. Waterloo was a proper ancient Greek drama. So many colorful characters, so much anxiety both on Waterloo and preceding clashes, so much was uncertain, with all three commanders having their distinct vision of entire affair, Napoleon seeking to reclaim glory for the sake of glory itself, Waterloo wanting to defeat the grandmaster, and Blucher, a stubborn old school commander who wanted to fulfill duty above all. Then the events, from Napoleon's march on Charleroi, to defeat of the Old Guard...

Post: #9

This is an extremely important battle for very many reasons; not to derail or sound conspirital, but an amazing amount of American and European wealth, thus power, was determined during the moments after the battle that are lasting today. The Rockefeller/Rothschild dynasties would be nowhere near as decadant if it wern't for Rothschild himself, in a BRILLANT business move, sold all his stock at once, following the days long battle. People watching this investing moguel assumed that Napoleon won, and he was forseeing a collaspe in the economic power of Britan. Everybody started to sell. EVERYBODY. The dump made the majority of stocks available, in the majority of the major major corps at the time, really, really cheap. It is important to note that at the time, Rothschild was famously known, and respected for having an extremely tight and accurate grasp on the global geo-political landscape, rivaling that of the most aggressive and effecient governments. So people sold and sold. Then, for super super cheap, he bought and bought and bought.

It is a very fascinating wall-street/investment story that could be out of a movie.

Post: #10

(06-20-2015 07:20 PM)sylo Wrote:  This is an extremely important battle for very many reasons; not to derail or sound conspirital, but an amazing amount of American and European wealth, thus power, was determined during the moments after the battle that are lasting today. The Rockefeller/Rothschild dynasties would be nowhere near as decadant if it wern't for Rothschild himself, in a BRILLANT business move, sold all his stock at once, following the days long battle. People watching this investing moguel assumed that Napoleon won, and he was forseeing a collaspe in the economic power of Britan. Everybody started to sell. EVERYBODY. The dump made the majority of stocks available, in the majority of the major major corps at the time, really, really cheap. It is important to note that at the time, Rothschild was famously known, and respected for having an extremely tight and accurate grasp on the global geo-political landscape, rivaling that of the most aggressive and effecient governments. So people sold and sold. Then, for super super cheap, he bought and bought and bought.

It is a very fascinating wall-street/investment story that could be out of a movie.

I'm pretty sure that he heard the result first due to a comms network superior to any other.

Fantastic businessman.

Post: #11

I'm actually pretty sure that episode is a myth cooked up by the tinfoil hat crowd.

Niall Ferguson talked about what really happened in the Ascent of Money. I'll look into it again.

Post: #12

I understand what you are saying, my friend...but with all due respect, follow the money. It is a story worth telling because it can be sytematically broken down to a series of traceable transactions. Again, just trying to give a dif perspective, something worth considering;... besides the actual collateral damage and immediate benefactors of said battle.

Post: #13

(06-21-2015 08:13 AM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm actually pretty sure that episode is a myth cooked up by the tinfoil hat crowd.

Niall Ferguson talked about what really happened in the Ascent of Money. I'll look into it again.

He's the court historian of everything great about Britain's financialisation of the world.

The Battle of Waterloo was the beginning of the end of Europe's old aristocracy which was based on the productive use of the land. From this time onward it began to be replaced by the merchant banker speculating on farm outputs and later industrial output and lending to governments at usury and backing both sides in war. By the end of the 19th Century, the penetration of the merchant class into the aristocracy was complete as shown by the numbers of lords who went through the ignominy of giving their daughters to a banker.

The battle heralded the age of Whig economics, the financialised Irish Famine created out of abundance, the removal of English peasants from the land and into factories and into the cash economy. The destruction of English farms because of the huge amount of food confiscated from Irish farms to feed the factory coolies and the army. There we have the prototype of free trade that we are supposed to love today.