THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO.
[To vas EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] Sin,—Your correspondent, "G. H. F.," in the Spectator of January 1st, makes two erroneous statements as to the battle of Waterloo. He says that "the Prussian loss was equal to that sustained by our troops." According to' Siborne the Prussian loss was 6,998, and the British 15,430; and recent writers make no material change in these figures. The Prussians also lost 2,467 in the fighting at Wavre, which might be added to the 6,998 in reckoning the total losses of their army on June 18th. Again, 'G. H. F." is not correct in speaking so disparagingly of the quality of the French troops. Lord Wolseley ("Decline and Fall of Napoleon," p. 140) says "As far as its numbers went, Napoleon had never commanded a finer body of well-trained and wall-seasoned soldiers." This is more than could fairly besaid of the allied armies, which contained a certain proportion of troops of the very best quality, but others much inferior.
In my opinion, it would be desirable that Mr. Atokett, in future editions of hia work, should give the total louse of the
British and Prussian armies. A loss of seven thousand means terribly hard fighting, and it only began at four or ball-past four. In accepting battle at Waterloo, Wellington did so on the positive assurance of Blficher's support. As to the value of that support, I should like to quote again from Lord Wolseley's book, p. 182 :—
"No one can be better aware, no one can be prouder than I am, of the magnificent courage and steadiness of the British soldier at Waterloo ; but when every allowance is made for it, the honest historian must admit that it was the splendid audacity of this Prussian move upon St. Lambert and the French right, due to the personal loyalty of Prince Blucher to Wellington and in opposition to the strategic views of Gneisenau, that determined the fate of Napoleon's army at Waterloo."
Previous page
