Waterloo Remembered Day 6: Scratching the Surface

Thanks Hans-Karl. It's interesting that Michael Hughes, John Lynn, and Ilya Berkovich all see the applicability of the primary group concept though - the first two in relation to the French army, and Ilya in Ancien Regime armies more broadly.

I did read only John Lynn - Bayonets of the Republic - from the above mentioned authors, though he stresses the importance of the ordinaire - he is not overdoing the primary group concept as much as Ed is doing, in my view.

(your ordinaire may consist of totally different people than you would fight in battle with, each day you would be aligned in one rank and then the sergent - major - would form three ranks according to height, and then again in battle sub units would be equalized to ensure and identical frontage to be able to manoeuvre, this at least for the French Army, so you might had different comrades at your side all the time)

I always feel we are on thin ground trying to understand how the mind frame then was and what motivated and did not motivate people or how they did cope or did not cope with the stress of battle.

We can describe it and sometimes soldiers or officers allow us to get glimpses into their frame of mind, an officers gets brain on his face from a man hit beside him and to distract himself a bit from that experience he picks up a musket and cartridge pouch to distract himself by shooting.

Primary group concept is very convenient to create an explanation we could identify with - but - in my view - there must be more and it was different to our days.

Thanks Charles. The obvious issue is the question of effective diagnosis. It is quite clear from some of the trial records that some individuals were point on trial with symptoms that seem to suggest the accused had PTSD (having been found wondering aimlessly behind the lines after Waterloo). A deserter would more likely have had a sense of purpose, especially in terms of evading capture. Yet we cannot be sure. It's a topic that needs study, but the question is where to direct the efforts so that the diagnosis is effective.

Very difficult to asses, even considering in what frame of mind those people 200 years ago lived - death and injuries - also in daily civilian life quite common.

I read a case where a soldier broke down in battle, but nobody made a fuss about it, up to then he served well - they had the impression that the candle was burnt down, the amount of bravery each man was given individually - was spent - he had the right to leave in the middle of the battle. A very interesting and in my view impressive approach to the psyche.

Interesting. That clearly stands at odds with what Ed talks about in terms of primary group dynamics. I've not come across such a nuanced 'credit where credit is due' approach before. Do you happen to know the book?

Hi Hans-Karl, we have done some detecting in the former woodland and have had really good results (which as you say is somewhat surprising given the impact of the trees) - we are hoping to go back and do the entirety of the area of the woods, but we are usually there at the wrong time of the year, when the farmer has his crops down. An off-season trip is clearly a necessity! Thanks for the feedback on the videos, which of the modern illustrations are you referring to?

Hi Stuart

I am referring to two colour drawings of seemingly a modern artist, one depicting French infantry with an eagle in a random formation, the eagle is carried by a grenadier, and he should be carried by a porte aigle or eagle carrier, in 1815, which was an officer, usually the eagle was accompanied by an eagle guard and not at random wandering around in a firing line (indeed an eye witness Larréguy de Civrieux, sergent - Major au 93e de Ligne, - Division Foy indicates that the eagles were sent to the rear, p. 56 in the Carnet Verts, for the Coldstream Guards shooting down behind the all, dimensions of equipment being off, as well as being quite exposed. This indeed would be very interesting to know how far they would be exposed over the wall, where the lower ground was however covered well by the shooting holes created by the sappeurs of the Königlich Deutsche Legion, so the attacker had no dead angle.

My firs to go source for Hougoumont is - Belgian authors

Coppens, Bernard & Courcelle; Patrice

Waterloo 1815 - Hougoumont - Les Carnets de la Campagne - No. 1, Bruxelles 1999

https://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/military/c_hougoumont.html

Patrice Courcelle does also quite a lot of fairly well researched paintings

https://www.heritages.digital/waterloo-1815-en/1321/?lang=en

Yes indeed, that was our first thought too - however the majority of the French-identified musketballs within the garden were squashed, showing that they had impacted on something, rather than being unimpacted (which would suggest they were either overshoot from outside the walls that dropped in, or that the Nassau had dropped them when reloading their own muskets). So unless the Nassau were firing them at something in the garden, there is a high likelihood that they were fired from French muskets.

In his account of Waterloo, Colonel Prince Bernard Sachsen-Weimar says that the 2nd Battalion of the Orange-Nassau Regiment arrived with French muskets (for which there was no ammunition as it had all been fired off at Quatre Bras); the First Battalion had British muskets. He claims he tried to get British muskets for them but without success. Although I know the Orange-Nassau Regiment were the other side of the battlefield to Hougoumont, this suggests that the Orange-Nassau troops were issued with French muskets before they joined the army, but at least some who had arrived earlier had had them replaced with British muskets.

Perhaps more interestingly, in his account, Captain Eberhard, who served in the 2nd Battalion of Orange-Nassau, mentions that being without ammunition after Quatre-Bras, they were able to get some from the ‘Duchy of Nassau Regiments’, which suggests that the 1st and 2nd Nassau Regiments also carried French muskets. It is therefore quite possible that the Nassau troops at Hougoumont fought with French muskets.

In his account of Waterloo, Colonel Prince Bernard Sachsen-Weimar says that the 2nd Battalion of the Orange-Nassau Regiment arrived with French muskets (for which there was no ammunition as it had all been fired off at Quatre Bras); the First Battalion had British muskets. He claims he tried to get British muskets for them but without success. Although I know the Orange-Nassau Regiment were the other side of the battlefield to Hougoumont, this suggests that the Orange-Nassau troops were issued with French muskets before they joined the army, but at least some who had arrived earlier had had them replaced with British muskets.

Interestingly, in his account, Captain Eberhard, who served in the 2nd Battalion of Orange-Nassau, mentions that being without ammunition after Quatre-Bras, they were able to get some from the ‘Duchy of Nassau Regiments’, which suggests that the 1st and 2nd Nassau Regiments also carried French muskets. It is therefore quite possible that the Nassau troops at Hougoumont fought with French muskets.