Waterloo Field Hospital Excavation

[Minimalist]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new...180972685/

The First Investigation Into the Allied Waterloo Field Hospital Is Unearthing Cannonballs—and Limbs

The dig, conducted by military veterans and service members, suggests just how close Napoleon’s forces might have come to victory in the epic battle

Interesting stuff but for a detailed study of military "medicine" try this.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139913/

Care of the injured soldier is as old as war. And war is as old as history. Perhaps older. People were fighting and hurting one another back into the old stone age, long before organized societies and armies. And others were caring for the injured. So one can make the argument that military medicine should go back a very long way. Yet, what we now call military medicine is really a product of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was in fact during the Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the 19th century that the organized practice of military medicine began, and it didn’t reach its modern form until the beginning of the 20th century.

[Minimalist]

The body of General Charles Etienne Gudin has been identified after DNA testing.  Gudin was a divisional commander in Davout's First Corps before losing a leg in battle and dying of gangrene in 1812.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11...nce-floor/

One-legged skeleton found under Russian dance floor is Napoleon's 'lost general', DNA tests confirm

Amazing find and superb medical detective work.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Time Team?

[Minimalist]

No it was a combined Russo-French team.

There was an earlier story on how they found the skeleton.

[Minimalist]

Gudin's body returned to France.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57810139

France receives remains of Napoleonic general from Russia

Military uniforms back then were so much cooler than today.... but the masks ruin it.

[Minimalist]

Gudin's action at Auerstadt (1806)

The Prussian Army at Auerstadt: 14 October 1806



"Davout sent on the brave and heroic Gudin, with his division, to clear it [the Kosen defile] and occupy the level space on the top, at all hazards. In a few minutes Gudin stood, in battle array, on the [Auerstadt] plateau, though entirely shut out from the enemy by the dense fog. Blucher, with nearly three thousand hussars, was ordered to ride over the plateau and sweep it of the enemy. The former part of the order he obeyed, and came dashing through the mist with his body of cavalry, when suddenly they found themselves on the bayonets' point, and the next moment shattered and rolled back by a murderous fire that seemed to open from the bowels of the earth. Rallying his men, however, to the charge, Blucher came galloping up to the French, now thrown into squares, and dashed, with his reckless valor, on their steady ranks. Finding, from the incessant roll of musketry, that Blucher was meeting with an obstinate resistance, the King of Prussia sent forward three divisions to sustain him. These, with Blucher's hussars, now came sweeping down on Gudin's single division, threatening to crush it with a single blow. One division against three, supported by twenty-five hundred cavalry, was fearful odds; but Gudin knew his defeat would ruin the army, now packed in the defile below, and, making desperate efforts to reach the plateau, presented a firm front to the enemy, and proved, by his heroic resistance, worthy to be under the illustrious chief that commanded him."

Joel Tyler Headley, Napoleon and his Marshals (1846)

[Deesse23]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).

[Cavebear]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).  

Why Napolean lost at Waterloo:

1. He did not anticipate the arrival of the Prussians.
2. The British and allies were unexpectedly steady.
3. The rainy weather hindered the French attacks.
4. As odd as it may seem, the British had better horses.

[Deesse23]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).  

Why Napolean lost at Waterloo:

1.  He did not anticipate the arrival of the Prussians.
2.  The British and allies were unexpectedly steady.
3.  The rainy weather hindered the French attacks.
4.  As odd as it may seem, the British had better horses.

We were talking about Jena/Auerstedt in 1806

[Minimalist]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).  

Why Napolean lost at Waterloo:

1.  He did not anticipate the arrival of the Prussians.
2.  The British and allies were unexpectedly steady.
3.  The rainy weather hindered the French attacks.
4.  As odd as it may seem, the British had better horses.

5.  (Or maybe this should be #1) Napoleon left Marshal Davout in Paris as War Minister and instead put Marshal Ney in command of his left wing.  Davout was one of the few French Marshals who excelled at independent command - along with Massena who by 1815 was too old to take the field.  Ney had the bravery of a good regimental sergeant-major but the strategic brilliance of a dim bulb.  He totally mishandled D'Erlon's Corps at the twin battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny and then was the damned fool who ordered those unsupported cavalry charges at Waterloo. 

Still, with all those fuck ups and the bad weather the Anglo-Allied line was cracked when La Haye Sainte fell and it was only the intervention of the Prussians which saved the Allies' asses.  Von Bulow's Corps had not reached Ligny in time to take part and so marched completely around to reach Waterloo in the early afternoon striking at Napoleon's right flank.

6.  Had the French won at Waterloo they would have shortly had to face a Russian army approaching from the East as well as an Austrian Army which, even though defeated by Rapp at La Souffel would still when combined with the Russians have greatly outnumbered the French.

7.  Had, by some way, Napoleon managed to defeat the Russians and Austrians too, he would have faced a renewed campaign in 1816 because the old monarchies of Europe could never have allowed Napoleon to succeed.

8.  Napoleon had stomach cancer and it was probably only the enforced retirement on St Helena which allowed him to live until 1821.  If he had continued active campaigning it would have solved the problem much sooner.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Loving this thread, I'm learning a lot.

[Minimalist]

There is a 9. which should not be overlooked.

Napoleon did not have Berthier as his Chief of Staff.  Berthier had the ability to comprehend Napoleon's meaning and reduce it to clear instructions and orders.  His replacement, Marshal Soult, while an able battlefield commander, did not.  The garbling of key orders was also a factor in French mistakes during the campaign.

[Deesse23]

There is a 9. which should not be overlooked.

Napoleon did not have Berthier as his Chief of Staff.  Berthier had the ability to comprehend Napoleon's meaning and reduce it to clear instructions and orders.  His replacement, Marshal Soult, while an able battlefield commander, did not.  The garbling of key orders was also a factor in French mistakes during the campaign.

Many of his best marshals were gone by the time of Waterloo. I am talking about the ones who were more than Ney (or Murat*) who had lots of personal courage, could inspire people but unfortunately werent too bright, and as Min already mentioned the ones who were tactically brilliant or even good strategists. Lannes, Bessieres, Massena to name a few.

Napoleons problem with Berthier was mirrored by R.E. Lee and Jackson. It was the team that mattered. A commander who could trus trust his subordinate enough to leave all necessary matteres in his hands. A team where one knew exactly what the other was all about. When one guy was gone, it was not only one guy less, but a whole symbiosis gone, and its effects.

Last but not least another problem he had in common with Lee (at Gettysburg at least): Lack of horses = lack of recon. In Napoleons case it was the blunt lack of horses due to previous campaigns which kept him from gathering enough recon to base good decisions on. The days of Eylau with 10.000 horses availiable were also over (in spite of Neys efforts on the english carees).

* Ney and Murat may have not been the sharpest knifes in the drawer, but i admire their personal courage. Getting the Cossacks to shout "Hooorrah, Murat!" takes some major cojones. Ordering your own firing squad, that takes some guts as well, in both cases. Oh by the way: Murats son Napoléon Achille Murat married a grandniece of George Washington

[Minimalist]

True enough.  If you consider the roster of Corps commanders at the beginning of the 1805 Campaign just 10 years earlier:

I- Bernadotte - a traitor by 1815

II-  Marmont - sold out to the Bourbons in 1814

III - Davout - already discussed

IV - Soult - already discussed

V -  Lannes - dead 1809

VI - Ney - already discussed

VII- Augereau - too old and sick by 1815

Cavalry Corps - Murat - had gone over to the Allies in 1814

Imp. Guard - Bessieres - dead 1813

So he had only 3 of his top 9 available but that in no way excuses his failure to properly employ Davout and Soult and his unbelievable overvaluation of Ney ( and Grouchy.)  Napoleon's personnel decisions were declining.

[Cavebear]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).  

Why Napolean lost at Waterloo:

1.  He did not anticipate the arrival of the Prussians.
2.  The British and allies were unexpectedly steady.
3.  The rainy weather hindered the French attacks.
4.  As odd as it may seem, the British had better horses.

We were talking about Jena/Auerstedt in 1806

Oops. I think, because of my French ancestry, I avoid Napoleon. Wrong battle.

[Cavebear]

Davout had but one single corps and held (later even pushed back) the main body of the prussian army, led by one of the most agressive commanders you can imagine (Blücher).  

Why Napolean lost at Waterloo:

1.  He did not anticipate the arrival of the Prussians.
2.  The British and allies were unexpectedly steady.
3.  The rainy weather hindered the French attacks.
4.  As odd as it may seem, the British had better horses.

5.  (Or maybe this should be #1) Napoleon left Marshal Davout in Paris as War Minister and instead put Marshal Ney in command of his left wing.  Davout was one of the few French Marshals who excelled at independent command - along with Massena who by 1815 was too old to take the field.  Ney had the bravery of a good regimental sergeant-major but the strategic brilliance of a dim bulb.  He totally mishandled D'Erlon's Corps at the twin battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny and then was the damned fool who ordered those unsupported cavalry charges at Waterloo. 

Still, with all those fuck ups and the bad weather the Anglo-Allied line was cracked when La Haye Sainte fell and it was only the intervention of the Prussians which saved the Allies' asses.  Von Bulow's Corps had not reached Ligny in time to take part and so marched completely around to reach Waterloo in the early afternoon striking at Napoleon's right flank.

6.  Had the French won at Waterloo they would have shortly had to face a Russian army approaching from the East as well as an Austrian Army which, even though defeated by Rapp at La Souffel would still when combined with the Russians have greatly outnumbered the French.

7.  Had, by some way, Napoleon managed to defeat the Russians and Austrians too, he would have faced a renewed campaign in 1816 because the old monarchies of Europe could never have allowed Napoleon to succeed.

8.  Napoleon had stomach cancer and it was probably only the enforced retirement on St Helena which allowed him to live until 1821.  If he had continued active campaigning it would have solved the problem much sooner.

I am more familiar with the details of generalship in the US Civil War, but some things about Generals are true everywhere.

1. Some are planners; some react to battlefield changes.
2. Some can see a map and understand where the dangers and advantages are; others have a talent for seeing the terrain in person.
3. Some know when to stand; some know when to retreat for another fight.
4. Some belong on the field; some belong at HQ (and both are useful).
5. Some can listen to a battleplan and just go do it; some can say to the CIC "that won't work".
6. Some never saw a situation they couldn't lose; some see a position that can't be held.
7. The Peter Principle: Everyone gets promoted to a job they cannot do (usually). The US Civil War Generals were "generally" (no pun intended) good tactical field commanders. But they failed the leap to strategy. The Confederacy had better strategic Generals (Johnson, Lee) AND tactical ones (Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart). So it took a whil for the US to find theis. (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan).

[Minimalist]

Yes. Perhaps best encapsulated by Pericles.

[Cavebear]

Yes. Perhaps best encapsulated by Pericles.

Yeah, stupid is as stupid does...

[Minimalist]

They also dig in Austria.


https://www.livescience.com/62774-mass-g...-wars.html

Archaeologists Dig Up Mass Grave of Soldiers Crushed by Napoleon's Troops

DEUTSCH-WAGRAM, Austria —Just under the topsoil of the farm fields in this small town northeast of Vienna, there are traces of one of the biggest battles of the Napoleonic Wars.

According to some estimates, 55,000 soldiers died when Napoleon Bonaparte's troops clashed with the Austrian army during the Battle of Wagram between July 5 and 6, 1809. Many of them were buried directly on the plain, and for the first time, archaeologists are systematically excavating the battlefield.

One major quibble with this report, though.

In his quest to control Europe, French emperor Napoleon sparked a series of bloody wars across the continent and beyond between 1799 and 1815. During the spring and summer of 1809, the War of the Fifth Coalition broke out, pitting the French Empire against the Austrian Empire, which sought to break up Napoleon's influence.

Regurgitating Limey propaganda.  Britain broke the peace established at Amiens and declared war on France in 1803.  The hid behind their fleet while they ran around conning the other European land powers to do the actual fighting for them.  By 1805 they had brought Austria, Russia and Sweden into the mix and then sat there and watched the Austrians and Russians get the shit kicked out of them at Austerlitz.   Austria surrendered, the Russians ran for home and the Third Coalition was history.

The War of the Fourth Coalition began in 1806 when Prussia foolishly decided to declare war on France while the allies from the Third Coalition were still licking their wounds.  Prussia, too, got the shit kicked out of it.  Russia, having finally gotten itself together after Austerlitz finally moved west again and after a bloody but inconclusive battle at Eylau were crushed a few months later at Friedland.  And so ended the War of the Fourth Coalition which was an even bigger disaster than the Third!

The War of the Fifth Coalition, referenced in the quote above, began in 1809 when the Austrians attacked the French in Bavaria while the bulk of the French army was occupied in Spain.  Once again, it was the Allies who started the war, not the French.


Be careful of Limey propaganda.

[Minimalist]

There's an outfit called Waterloo Uncovered working on the battlefield.

They produced this film clip which, I warn you, can be a bit gruesome in spots when discussing medical procedures, but that is the point of any discussion of medical "treatment" in the Napoleonic era.




Again, at the end I almost have to laugh when the speaker piously opines how Britain had to stop despotism in France while completely overlooking the fact that they were allied with such bastions of liberal thought as Austria, Russia, and Prussia in the goal of reestablishing monarchy in France.

[abaris]

Again, at the end I almost have to laugh when the speaker piously opines how Britain had to stop despotism in France while completely overlooking the fact that they were allied with such bastions of liberal thought as Austria, Russia, and Prussia in the goal of reestablishing monarchy in France.

I also lost it when he started to praise Britain (not so liberal either, back then) and even to compare the Napoleonic regime with Nazi Germany. In some aspects, Napoleon was much more advanced than Britain and it's allies combined. He cotracted the code Napoleon, which is still the foundation of many contemporary civil laws. He also did away with the aged and unfair guild system, still in effect in the confines of the Holy Roman Empire before it crumbled in 1806. One may safely say, that Napoleon was less of a tyrant than the Russian Czar, ruling over a nation of indentured servants.