Thank you for a very interesting talk. I think that Wellington couldn't give credit to the Dutch for their efforts at Quatre Bras because it would mean he'd have to admit to having made a fundamental error of judgement. Hence, I suspect, his staying quiet . He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that would normally allow subordinates to disobey orders without consequences.
there is no debate that without the Prussians Wellington wouldn't have accepted that battle as all, because he knew being a true professional, that he couldn't beat Napoléon on his own. It wasn't an Anglo Dutch army either, it was an Anglo, Dutch Belgian, German (Nassau, Hannover, Braunschweig) army - well the strijd must seemingly go on. The Duke of Brunswick was killed at Quatre Brass, where his units along with the Belgians / Dutch played an all important task. I wonder how the Belgians do feel to be addressed as Dutch.
The whole Dutch-Belgian issue is a bit awkward but I tend to use 'Dutch' as the short form even though it's inaccurate. The more accurate term would be the United Netherlands or the Kingdom of the Netherlands but Netherlanders tends to get confused with the later construct. Of course the British tended to refer to troops from this kingdom by none of these titles preferring to refer to them a 'Blue Germans' to distinguish them from the 'Red Germans' who fought in British uniforms. You are correct about Wellington though it is unlikely that he would have offered battle at Waterloo had he not be aware that the Prussians were intent on joining him there. His only real concern being whether they would arrive in time to influence the outcome.
I've seen a report somewhere to the effect that Wellington met Blucher on the evening of the 17th and agreed to stand at Waterloo having been assured that he would get the support on the 18th of Bulow's corps, which was not engaged at Lingy. Apparently his alternate plan was to abandon Brussels and make a stand on the banks of the Scheldt River.
I listed very carefully and waited very patiently to get to the Dutch perspective. It never came and I was disappointed. As you are a professor I did expect more details about the Battle from the Dutch perspective as well as numbers and deployment of those troops . What many lectures like this fail to mention is the fact that Wellington had an agreement with Blucher that he would come to the battle. Wellington on that basis decided to offer battle to the French. This was a plan which negates the idea that the Prussians appeared by chance to save Wellington.If I was marking this as an assigned paper the mark would be a measly 50%
A very welcome lecture. As for the young Dutch and Belgian soldiers I ask myself if, at their age, I could have stood to and marched and fought and marched through a terrible storm and stood to after a miserable night and faced D'Erlon's Corp. No I couldn't. They were brave and good allies then as they always have been and are today. I am very proud of them.
Heel boeiend en verhelderend, dankuwel. We rijden vaak langs als we vanuit Frankrijk terug naar Nederland gaan en elke keer weer dat mooie grote bord "Waterloo, champs de bataille".. We gaan nu echt een keertje kijken en wisten niet dat de Nederlandse inbreng zo groot was.
When I look at most comments it is clear that the Dutch have had a much to important influence on English history and that many British still can't cope with that. All that is bad is mentioned "Dutch" in there language. They easily forget (deny) that they have been saved from an absolute monarch by William III of Orange, also becoming their King. Her created the Bank of England, laying the foundation for British credibility and the British Empire. By the way, Wellington and William I did not like eachother. One of the reasons why William I had a mountain with a Lion constructed on the battlefield. Hey guys, you can't change history. Read the memoires of Napoleon, can be interesting aswell.
Are you off your fucking head? Every year, particularly in Scotland and Ireland but in England too, 10s of thousands of people celebrate the accession of William III. We don't "forget (deny)being saved...by William III of Orange". He is the most feted monarch of any of the four nations in the entire history of our islands.
I love the 5th Dutch Militia and the amazing fight they put up at Quatre Bras. Lt. Colonel Jan Westenberg exhibited fine leadership and the Militia showed courage in the face of tremendous odds against theM.
The British bias was really a Wellington bias. The “Iron Duke” was ruthless at self-promotion and steam-rolled over anyone and everyone who might detract from “his” victory. And he was incredibly successful, becoming a major international celebrity for the next fifty years or so, and one of the most famous men in the world. The British had indeed been something special during the Peninsular War, but most of the regiments present at Waterloo (with a few key exceptions) were fairly raw, and don’t seem to have performed very much better than their allies.
Getting fed up with so many books and TH-cams that assert the British assume Waterloo was a totally British under Wellington thing as if it is a revelation. Age 10 to 13, at a typcal Engish prep (small, private, boarding of the type you would expect to push a British jingoism perspective) school, in the 1960s, I only ever heard or read that it was a combined effort - almost as thought teachers and history books were at pains to stress the importance of combined efforts and how to make them work. Wellington stood because he trusted Blucher to march. Blucher marched because he trusted Wellington to stand - cue lessons in trust. Wellington's army was cobbled together from scraps of whoever was available with a large number of his best troops being Germans - and, of course, Blucher's army was all German (well, to be exact, Germany didn't exist then, they were Prussians). Most of his Peninsular veterans were retired or in America or elsewhere in the world. I've been interested in Waterloo ever since because of the personalities, characteristics, relationships, chances, luck, preparations, etc, and how they were handled as a lesson in how to handle such complexity. Much later, Wellington did emphasise his role to the detriment of others but his first comment was about how it was a "close run thing". The rain and muddy ground that delayed the French from starting the battle also delayed Blucher's arrival - no rain might have led to early start but would have led to early arrival too.
I've always been taught the same . A joint plan and a combined effort. There's no secret or conspiracy that I've come across to diminish the contribution of the allied nations. It's all readily available in any book . Yet you only have to mention Waterloo and you'll get jumped on by people on here claiming the British don't give enough credit and it was all about the Prussians 'saving our asses ' Really? What on earth do they think we are taught ??
Likewise, this is really old news for most British people with an interest in history and I'm not really sure why it's such a surprise for foreign historians. Perhaps, if they spent a bit more time considering why Britain places such an importance on Waterloo they might actually get beyond stating the obvious and manage to put it some logical perspective.
Couldn't agree more with these comments! I too was taught at a prep school, and by my father a military historian, that the Waterloo campaign was an Allied operation, and above all, cooperation. Several of my history teachers had been on active service in WW2 and knew all about the importance of allies in their own military experience. I gave my first talk on Wellington at the age of 13, can't remember the content, but hope it reflected the balanced interpretation of my teachers!
Even the 1970 film shows very clearly a joint effort, with the Prussians as equal partners. It doesn’t perhaps show quite how multi-national Wellington’s army was, but that can perhaps be expected in terms of keeping the narrative simple for the audience.
Good point well made. I did Higher (A level equiv)History in Glasgow in the 1970s and it was definitely described as an Allied win. What's more, as good Presbyterians, there was also discussion about it having an element of Protestant states working in cooperation. It came as a surprise to be told by non-Brits that we claimed victory alone.
Hello Ben Schoenmaker. I think that you should publish your book ‘Waterloo 200 year struggle’ in English. I for one would be very interested. When I was about ten I received for Christmas a book on the battle of Waterloo, and was surprised to discover how many different nationalities were present on the Allied side. I agree with you that the battle was/is presented as a British victory, whereas in reality it was an Allied victory over Napoleon Bonaparte. It is important to remember that Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington as the C-in-C of the ‘Anglo Dutch’ forces used the victory for his own personal gain, politically and otherwise. Also he was not necessarily that trusting of the Netherlands forces (Dutch-Belgian) as not long previously they had been part of the Grand Armée (as you say). Or did he just say this to discredit their performance in the Waterloo Campaign? Napoleon could not have been defeated at Waterloo without the combined efforts of all those involved. Wellingtons army would have been smaller without the Dutch-Belgians in his army or the Brunswicker’s, Hanoverian’s, Kings German Legion, or those from Nassau. And without the Prussians Napoleon would have had more troops available to concentrate against Wellington. After all d’Erlon’s Corps spent the day marching back and forth between the Prussians and the Allies at Waterloo answering separate requests for his aid from Napoleon and Ney. Also remember that Napoleon committed a part of his army to fight the Prussians at Wavre. Wellingtons troops were not all of the quality that he had in the Peninsular, mainly because after Napoleons previous defeat the British Exchequer cut the army. Neither was Napoleons army of the quality of the Grand Aimée he squandered in 1812, and was finally defeated in 1813. Yes many of his veterans returned to the colours, but he also had to recruit many conscripts nicknamed ‘Marie-Louise’s’. Also Napoleon was still suffering with the problem of finding quality mounts for his cavalry, a problem haunting him from the 1812 Russian Campaign. Something the Coalition army’s did not suffer. I end by asking you to publish your book in English.
its nice to get the other side as a wargamer on the battle of waterloo and seeing how many parts of the anlgo amry work together to stop the France at waterloo
Wish there were more details; a good effort. But - Not accurate in his comment about the Quatre-Bras positioning being Dutch - in origins. In reality it was a 3 way decision.... The first Allied commander to react decisively in concentrating at the crossroads, was the Nassau (German) Brigade commander Prince Bernard Saxe-Weimar - a German born young commander. His decision was confirmed shortly after by his Netherlands Army superiors - namely, General Perponcher (Dutch), in consultation with the able Gen. Constant Rebecque ( Swiss). The Prince of Orange had authority to countermand the decision and follow Wellington's orders to evacuate the crucial position, but he instead sided with the 3 way decision. A point ignored by Prince of Orange critics. 20:00 - It's a false impression by repeating that the Dutch were conducting the fighting retreat to defend the crossroads; the Netherlands force in the action was a composite of Dutch, Belgians and Nassau (Germans). 28:00 Not all of Bijlandt's brigade retreated; and only did so after trying to fight the big French columns alone initially. Bijlandt was bayonet wounded in that fight, and some of the Dutch Belgian soldiers were in the counter-attack against D'Erlon. He also fails to mention Ghingy and Merlen's Dutch-Belgian cavalry which advanced to try rescue the British Heavy cavalry.
I was interested in this as I've read Peter Hofschroer's books on the campaign as well as William Sibornes and several other histories. Unfortunately, I found the long preamble somewhat boring as there was nothing new and gave up actually watching when I realised I was counting the number of 'Errs!' rather than listening to the words in-between. I may come back and have another go once I've woken up again and start somewhere beyond the halfway point in the hope that by then we will be talking about the Dutch contribution.
I Certainly do not agree with your comments re it was a " British " battle it has always been one where the Brits fought with their Allies and the Prussians forced marching from a Battle earlier in the week to crush the French right flank . I have listened and watched with interest to the others Lectures multiple times but will put this one down to 39 minuets wasted ....
Indeed. The British perspective was a joint effort. That's what we are taught. If your country describes Waterloo as a British victory that's your own Ignorance and a failing of your education system, not ours.
Ive always been interested in The Dutch contribution. So we have a book written in Dutch in 2015. Really helpful. Then immediately a sneer at Brexit. How sad.
Thank you for your presentation and thank you for using my language to explain your point of view. I have a number of books on the Dutch/Belgian contribution at Quatre Bras and Waterloo, so although I did not learn much that was new, as a history graduate it is always nice to hear a different perspective. I do hope you will present another lecture, it would be useful to learn more details about the Dutch/Belgian Army, personalities and units involved in the campaign and particularly at Quatre Bras, which in itself is a fascinating battle but tends to be over shadowed by the action at Waterloo. Thanks again.
When one is examining the reasons why the British were so xenophobic during that era, one must not forget that Great Britain was practically the only European nation that had fought the French from the very beginning of the Revolutionary Wars right until the end of the Napoleonic Wars. All other nations had at one time or another initially fought the French, were then defeated and subsequently became allies of France and finally had fought for Napoleon in several of his campaigns (albeit not always voluntarily, it must be admitted), including the Dutch and Belgians, most of the German states including Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Austria, many Italian states and of course Spain, which initially had been allied to France. The only nation not on this list was Portugal, Britain's old allies (but even the Portugeuse had troops fighting for Napoleon in Russia) and of course German troops from Hanover and Brunswick. Facing such odds and formidable coalitions of nations over 20 years of bitter warfare on land and at sea, the British had no reason to trust or like most other European nations and this bias and dislike was clearly shown in the British press and literature of the age. As for Wellington, he had good reason to mistrust many of his Dutch- Belgian troops and especially their commanders, many of whom had fought loyally for the French and Napoleon all of their military lives, some even not long ago against Wellington and the British during the Peninsular War. That his doubts about their loyalty were unfounded in the outcome sadly didn't change his opinion, in particular when compiling his after- battle report. In fact, many of these troops acted very bravely and no unit deserted to the French during the battle, which Wellington had feared might happen. Furthermore, Wellington might well have been peeved that it was the Dutch- Belgian force at Quatre Bras that had saved his face - and possibly the whole campaign - by bravely defending the crossroads he had initially neglected until he could reinforce them with British units. Wellington had overlooked the importance of Quatre Bras and he was not the type of person to look kindly on anybody who reminded him of this blunder, i.e. the Dutch and Belgians.
I’m English, I agree Waterloo should be portrayed as an allied victory, with everyone playing a key role, the British could not not have won without the Prussians and Dutch allies, but equally the Prussians and Dutch couldn’t have won without the British. I also think because the allied forces were commanded by Wellington and British officers, and they did most of the fighting at Waterloo, it makes sense to give the British a lot of credit that they rightfully deserve, British troops held key points on the line and the British commanders did a very good job, so we deserve a lot of glory for our large contribution, but I do think we take TOO much credit, without the Prussians attacking Napoleons right flank and rear at Waterloo, it’s likely he would have broken Wellingtons forces, who were defending very well, but still beginning to buckle, it likely would have looked like the battle of Wagram or similar to lingy, with a close fight but ultimately Napoleon taking the field, that was until the Prussians tipped the balance. Also at Quatre bras, the Dutch saved the day and arguably saved Wellingtons campaign from a serious blunder, the Prince of orange deserves more recognition for defying orders and defending the vital cross roads indeed! Wellington was no doubt a very good commander, probably the best out of the allied leaders in the 100 days campaign, and British troops played a key role at hougomont and defending the French cavalry charges, but when we claim all the credit I feel slightly ashamed, we NEEDED good allies like Blücher and the prince of orange to make us all victorious. We British have always been good at propaganda, we made it out like we defeated the ‘monster’ Napoleon! We have a lot to be proud of, but we need to honour the team effort more
Nice to see an unusual perspective, and thank you for the pleasant and interesting presentation, but it’s become a hobby of mine to argue against slanted accounts of this battle, referring as much as possible to primary evidence, and I have quite a few points about the video to discuss. It’s a habit for me at the moment and I’ve kept a large database of notes on Waterloo, so hopefully someone finds this interesting. To address the issues in the order presented, the first is the idea that UK monuments to Waterloo are unfair to Wellington’s allies because they mostly commemorate British participants. The most glaring point here is that the “Butte du Lion” monument to the Dutch commander the Prince of Orange is actually gigantic, though it doesn’t appear so in the photo supplied. The battlefield itself had its topography radically changed in the 1820’s when the Dutch government constructed this, and it dominates the entire field, so I don’t think it’s surprising if Wellington wasn’t thrilled with it. I’m not going to start on Peter Hofschröer’s book here as I don’t have enough time. Some of the primary evidence relating to Waterloo is contradictory, but historians like Hofschröer (and many others) have defied common sense and clear logic as well as entire cohorts of corroborated eyewitness evidence from veteran British officers. Hofschröer himself has been convicted of serious crimes including crimes of dishonesty (though I believe these aren’t directly related to the problems with this publications). Regarding the military experience of the Netherlanders at Waterloo, many of them were in fact veterans, though they had previously fought for Napoleon, and, despite the fact that Wellington’s army was essentially defending the Netherlands from Napoleonic dictatorship, this limited their trustworthiness in the eyes of the other Allied commanders. Thus, despite the initiative shown at Quatre Bras by the Prince of Orange (who happened to have his HQ nearby), his countrymen were largely placed in reserve at Waterloo, as discussed below. The presenter goes on to state that the action at Quatre Bras started around noon, and that the “first hours” constituted a tenacious delaying action by the Dutch. He doesn’t refer to evidence here. The French historian Henry Houssaye (“1815: Waterloo”), who based his work on French primary reports and was no friend of the British evidence, states that the French attack didn’t start till after 2 pm, and that Picton’s British division arrived at 3 pm. British reports say 3 pm or even earlier for the latter, e. g. Major Winchester of the Gordon Highlanders wrote “between two and three o’clock” in his letter to the historian William Siborne. Apparently, large Hanoverian and Brunswick units arrived very soon after. However, in defence of the presenter here, I believe there were small skirmishes prior to the main attack. I also think it’s notable that the force under the Prince of Orange that occupied Quatre Bras earlier in the day was not entirely Dutch - it actually consisted of Bylandt’s Dutch-Belgian brigade and a much stronger brigade of professionals from the German Duchy of Nassau, along with their attached artillery. When attacked by the French, who had greatly superior numbers initially, the main body of this force was driven back into the Wood of Bossu. However, British historians including William Siborne have noted that the 5th Dutch Militia Battalion bravely held the advanced post of the Farm of Gemioncourt for some time, and that this withstood multiple direct attacks before falling to the French infantry. As hinted by the presenter, accusations of bias against 19th century British historians are essentially directed at William Siborne, who did the vast majority of the contemporary research, but in fact Siborne described the actions of non-British troops in great detail. Regarding the action at Gemioncourt, he noted that “The manner in which His Royal Highness [the Prince of Orange] personally led on his National Militia on this occasion, was distinguished by the most resolute and conspicuous gallantry”. In contrast, Houssaye was not as complimentary to the Dutch-Belgians, writing that “The Netherlanders posted on the first line were not sufficiently numerous to sustain this attack. Bachelu had no difficulty in forcing back the 27th Chasseurs on Piraumont. When they reached the heights by the Lairalle farm, Jamin's brigade, led by Foy, made head against the left column; it forced back the 2nd Nassau battalion, routed the 5th battalion of the militia from Gémioncourt, the remnant of which had re-formed on the west of the road, and then retreated toward the Bossu wood.” On the main battle on the 18th, the presenter begins by noting the dispersed nature of Dutch deployments. The idea that they were on both flanks is only really true if you count the troops from the German Duchy of Nassau as Dutch. I believe they were nominally under the command of the Prince of Orange, and of course there was no German nation then, so this isn’t entirely unfair. However, most of the Dutch-Belgians were deployed in reserve to the north-west of Hougomont, with one of division at Halle, some 16 km in that direction. Their cavalry was also in reserve, well behind the front line. Most of their troops stayed in reserve for most or all of the day. One exception to this, as noted by the presenter, was the two infantry brigades of General Chasse’s division, which were brought forward to add support to Wellington’s centre just prior to the attack of Napoleon’s Imperial Guard, right at the end of the battle. However, the involvement of these brigades in driving back that attack was only very peripheral. Describing all the evidence for this would require an essay thousands of words long, but briefly, several British officers wrote to William Siborne to the effect that D'Aubreme’s brigade, which stood behind the British Guards, came under fire and showed signs of wanting to retreat, before Vandeleur’s British light cavalry brigade prevented this. The other brigade, under Detmer, was brought forward east of the British and fired on a column of line infantry from D’Erlon’s corps, which had been sent forward to attack Wellington’s centre on the flank of the Imperial Guard. This column retreated, so the Dutch-Belgians are due significant credit here, as is Dutch-Belgian artillery, and this has been well acknowledged by British historians. Besides their artillery and some cavalry involvement, the only other notable exception to the generally secondary role played by the Dutch-Belgians in the battle was that highlighted in the video of Bylandt’s infantry brigade, which was placed up front with Picton’s division in the centre-left of the Allied main line. Funnily enough, I see this brigade’s actions more positively than the author appears to. Firstly, it seems they were largely or entirely placed ahead of the main position, alongside the British 95th Rifles, apparently to act as skirmishers. For example, General Kempt wrote that “the 95th Regiment was in front of the other regiments of my brigade, occupying a knoll in front of some broken ground as light troops, and in a line with a considerable corps of Belgian and Nassau infantry”. Therefore, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that they left a hole in the line when they retreated. Further, although some British histories do give the impression that Bylandt’s brigade broke and left the field, I believe some or perhaps many of them did remain to help with wounded and prisoners. Also in their defence, they were heavily exposed to artillery early in the battle, compounding their substantial losses at Quatre Bras, and it was said by 19th British historians (e.g. James Shaw Kennedy) that their positioning at Waterloo appeared unjust. Others have implied that Wellington used the brigade as bait to lure the French to attack in the area of Picton’s strong division of British veterans, which was backed by the two British heavy cavalry brigades, positioned out of sight. If this is true, it can at least be said that the ploy worked, because the French attack was quickly and decisively defeated. I also don’t agree entirely with the author’s implication that the role of the Nassau battalion at Hougoumont is not given due credit in British literature. I have also made a study of this point, and, in fact, there is quite strong eyewitness evidence that the Nassauers weren’t there in force for long. British historians have diplomatically ignored this evidence, though the early ones also didn’t give much about the Nassau contribution as described by members of their battalion. I wrote a comment of similar length to this about that controversy under the video “Blood in the Orchard”, posted on this site. Finally, my contentious side, which was raised in the forum of scientific peer review, can’t resist adding that the idea that Knoop was “the most important military historian of the 19th century” seems to me similar to the foregoing statement that 17 June 1815, on which there was no significant fighting, was the most important day of the campaign. I enjoy discussing Waterloo, so if anyone has further information or arguments, please let me know.
Liz Weasel Napoleon left Elba with a bodyguard of 1000 troops. Napoleon sought peace but he had to be in a position to defend France from the European allies which were massing to invade France. Europe were in no mood to negotiate with Bonaparte which is why he rolled the dice and attacked the allied and Prussian armies in the Netherlands. You could also ask why does Switzerland have an army!
@@ianknight2053 You're winding me up, aren't you?!! He was a cocky little man who wanted to take over as much of Europe as he could. He provided a model for another cocky little man, this time an Austrian, who wanted to do the same just over 120 years later! Of course they both wanted to be able to do it with peaceful intent! Why fight after all if you can get away with it. They both wanted to take over Europe and invade the UK, and they both invaded Russia and duly paid the correct price. They both had the same strange idea that they could do precisely whatever they wanted and that nobody would mind. He, like Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, caused the deaths of many thousands of people. He was altogether a nasty little piece of work.
@@lizweasel2793 In 1815, Napoleon was not so young anymore . France was tired of wars . Say what you will, but Napoleon was also a good caretaker . He gave us sets of Law ( Codes Napoléon ) he was a good administrator . In 1815 he was no young hothead going to war but war was forced on him by his ennemies who wanted to get rid of him . Also he never did massacre millions of people in camps so was no model for the little Austrian ! Napoleon took power in 1800, yes but . Uk was at war with him but in 1805 is was Austria and Russia who declared war on him . In 1806 it was Prussian and Russia ...so yes he went to war ...but was not always the one who began the war ..
@@lizweasel2793 "They both had the same strange idea that they could do precisely whatever they wanted and that nobody would mind." The concept of the right of the strongest was a universal truth for all of history until very recently when some in Europe and the US have gotten the misguided idea that weakness is a strength. Every nation that fought in the campaigns of 1814 and 1815 thought exactly as you described. Every nation state, people and group that is worthy of mention in a history book applied that principle. That might makes right.
Ben Schoenmakers narrative is very pro-Dutch as it should be, the British narrative is Pro Britain as it also should be. Very odd reference towards Brexit though, I didn't understand that part, Ben seems irritated by the English, good episode though
I love the presentation of a much less commented on aspect. Waterloo had a huge German speaking contingent but Germany did not exist in 1815. It was an Allied victory.
With a double helping of Hanover. As the Elector of Hanover, King George had an automatic alliance with Hanover (assuming no schizophrenia). Plus the King's German Legion were troops raised in Hanover, but serving in the Royal Army. Ah, the good old days, when rulers had to keep track of their titles to avoid the embarrassment of declaring war on themselves.
Dutch forces numbered around 17,000 versus 31,000 British. Nassau, Hanover and Brunswick contributed 20,000 making British forces less than half. Prussia deserves equal praise for their attacks at Plancenoit which forced Napoleon to use half his Imperial Guard simply to hold his flank. Truly Waterloo was a coalition victory under nominal British leadership but the price for victory is paid in blood contributed by all.
Somewhat over-stated and biased account of the Dutch participation and there are plenty of points with which one could argue. First, Trafalgar and Waterloo did not usher in the period of British dominance. That had been done some 50 years before in the Seven Years War - now regarded as the first truly global conflict. The status attained by 1759 would ensure Britain’s pre-eminence despite the subsequent loss of the American colonies. What the Napoleonic victories did was to reveal the wealth and economic power that had by then been established. It has been said that over half of Napoleon’s troops marched on Waterloo wearing boots manufactured in England. Whether this is true or not, it is undoubtably the case that the Royal Navy triumphed in part, because they benefitted from greater investment than their rivals and that Britain was able to underwrite the cost of almost continuous warfare for over 15 years through the various successive alliances. She also had weapons generally of better quality - the Baker rifle, the lethal 1796 pattern sabre. All this points to a nation already ahead in the stakes. Second point is that Waterloo has always been taught in England as a convincing victory, but one based on alliances - the so called ‘United Nations’ ( the title later to be adopted for the organisation we now know as such). Also that as Wellington himself called it - 'a damned near run thing’ as much dependent on his allies, good fortune and the late arrival of Blucher. It is the significance of the battle, the assurance that Britain would become the uncontested global leader in its aftermath, the long peace that followed, - the turning point of history that is recognised, not arrogance though Englishmen always take some satisfaction from the defeat of their oldest enemy. Perhaps Wellington’s modesty also declined with age and his tendency towards self-deprecation diminished with success and the recognition that he had called it pretty much right from the start and outwitted maybe the greatest military tactician ever. He chose the ground and positioned his army effectively to the ‘reverse slope’ theory he had himself evolved to counter French superiority in artillery. He had equally lived down the insult Napoleon cast upon him calling him merely a ‘general of sepoys’. Then it was the culmination of hard experience and skills won through the years of the Peninsular War that had produced a professional and hardened army whilst Napoleon had squandered his. Many of the veteran units were not present at Waterloo having been variously disbanded or sent to Canada and such, but the core of Wellington’s troops had been through that campaign, they knew how to win and they knew when to stand their ground. Many of the allied units did not and were distributed along the line between more hardened corps. The resilience of the infantry squares was however crucial in weathering the battle. Equally logistical support learnt in the years in Spain. A significant percentage of ‘British’ troops were in fact German. Mostly Hanoverians of the King’s German Legion. They were regular troops within the command structure of the British army, not least the 400 odd men who defended La Haye Sainte at the allied centre and whose story is best told by Brendan Simms in the excellent ‘The Longest Afternoon’. It is perhaps this handful of men to whom the victory really belongs. Wellington was rightly pre-occupied with his right flank and accordingly sent the Guards to defend Hougoumont. Even this ‘battle within a battle’ was not entirely an Anglo-French affair, again with German participation. (The Hanoverians were originally recruited to the defence of Gibraltar in 1779. Their descendants would fight against the British in Flanders during 1917/8 - see Ernst Junger ‘In Stahlgewittern’.) Had the allied armies failed then like as not the Austrian and Russians would have eventually defeated Napoleon. His course was pretty much run, his forces depleted. The Grande Armée lay as corpses on the road back from Moscow. The money was spent, whilst the British seemed to have bottomless pockets. Perhaps what the Dutch contributed more to Waterloo than armed forces was in teaching commerce to the British in the century before. One might look at history from many angles, but for certain Waterloo was won with British money as much as it was won with British blood. Were it not for Dutch influence in banking and finance then perhaps we would all be speaking French. The wider point entirely missed by everyone is that Napoleon is the foundation of modern Europe, egalitarian society based on meritocracy, democratic principles and codified laws. The British still appear to be fighting against the intellectual weight of the enlightenment. Waterloo was the lasting victory for the status quo within England and not much has changed since.
The big pivot point of the Dutch pain about Waterloo is that the Dutch and Belgium (one country then) are completely written away. the Dutch (and Belgian) contribution is portrayed as a cowardly and stupid contribution. which didn't matter at all.
Dan Vigodny I agree with a lot of that, but disagree with a few points. 1) I don't think Napoleon was the greatest tactician. His major decisive tactical win against odds was Austerlitz, and after that the majority of his battles were costly and closely contested. In contrast, Hannibal thrashed vastly superior forces in huge battles just about every time he put on armour. 2) The KGL are invariably counted as German when people look at numbers from each country, though they were of course raised by Brits and trained and housed in the UK. 3) Napoleon could still have been a force in 1815 if he had won Waterloo. According to Siborne he would have soon conscripted two million men, and his 1814 campaign showed that he could inflict defeats on the Russians and Prussians against heavy odds. Also, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would presumably have shortly been back under his control. 4) Although the Napoleonic wars helped hasten the end feudalism in much of Europe, the antecedent of the French revolution clearly was the British progression towards individual rights that began with Magna Carta. Napoleon didn't support universal suffrage but he did reintroduce slavery in the French colonies and enforce totalitarian rule both in France and his conquered territories.
Given that Prof Schoenmaker is speaking in a language not his own I can forgive the umm-ing and ah-ing. The promotion of Hofschroer and the anti-Brexit comment, not so much. Such unprofessionalism relegates much of what he has to say.
He was born in London and never went to Germany. His father was born in London and never went to Germany. His grandfather moved to the UK in his early 20s. His great grandmother was daughter of James VI of Scotland. How German does that make him?
Very interesting lecture, it did raise the hackles a bit though. It got me thinking, while I think I know quite a bit about this battle it has mainly been from an English perspective, while I knew the Dutch were there, I only knew they had fallen back during d Erlon's attack. Perhaps it is time to get a new perspective.
This is so twisted and biased. I f you are trying to be fair to the forces under Wellington then why do you continuously call them Anglo - Dutch ..... there were more forces under Wellington (besides the British) who were not Dutch ..... (Belgium, Hanover, Nassau, Brunswick) ...... than Dutch. Did the Dutch close the gates at Hougoumont? Was it the Dutch Scots Grey`s who drove the French attack away? Was it the Dutch `Thin Red Line` guards who stood up in front of Napoleon's never defeated Old Guard and drove them back. Do you think Wellington would rather have had 17,000 more British troops than the Dutch ones he had?
Can you please tell me what the (bif Luik ) means ? 4 korps VON BÙLOW ( bif Luik ) - i know some Niederlàndisch , but no clue ? Best guess i got (viel glück )? ( sturm troop ) ? Please tell me - Danke ! HUSAR ! meine kinder !
What no one tells you either is Napoleon just didn't have French with him at the battle of Waterloo, He had Spanish, Polish also Irish troops with them which you hardly hear about.
To a certain extent, the entire focus on nationality in this debate is a failure to understand history. The armies that fought in this campaign were NOT truly national armies in the modern sense of the word. He mentions for example how many Germans were serving in the ranks of the British Army at the time, but fails to mention all the other nationalities represented not only in the British ranks but also in the French, Prussian and Netherlands Armies. The Orange-Nassau troops were, for instance, German but serving the King of the Netherlands and there were many foreigners in the French ranks such as Colonel Crabbe, Ney's ADC, and an officer from Belgium who died leading the first charge near La Haie Sainte. These armies were not really national armies but Royal or Imperial armies loyal to their respective Kings and Princes. Their composition and payment was entirely arbitrary. In fact, Prussia was still in dispute over some of the troops who Britain had insisted on making part of the Dutch force because their view was that any man who spoke German should be a Prussian and that argument would eventually lead to the Franco-Prussian War and later The Great War..
@@jacqueswilputte5468 One would have to justify that statement by identifying any army of the period that did not recruit any foreigners into its ranks on a voluntary or mercenary basis.
@@jacqueswilputte5468 And that's just an example of ignorant national bigotry. Contrary to this childish accusation most people who study history in the UK know full well what role the various armies played in the Waterloo campaign and are keen to uncover more details. Which is actually one reason why this video is so disappointing.
Napoleon left Elba with peaceful intent...? He was such a peaceful chap that he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of fatherless children. A great general but had terrible consequences
Maybe Arthur had a premonition that the Dutch would ruin the battlefield for eternity when he said they almost ruined his battle. They obliged him and made a mountain to honor a fool and destroyed acres of archelogy forever. no sympathy for them!
The fool you mention did save Arthur's ass at Quatre-Bras and Waterloo . He also helped stop the french guard ..not bad for a fool but UK is blind when it wants to get all the glory :-)
Ok! Well, I finally gritted my teeth and came back to watch the second half of this video hoping to learn more about the Dutch (Netherlands) perspective on the battle of Waterloo. sadly I didn't, which was somewhat disappointing. Most of the relevant content was less informative than say Peter Hofschroers books on The Waterloo Campaign and I basically learnt nothing from this video that I didn't know already and quite honestly if I had I not already known about it then I would have learned far less from watching this than reading a decent book about it. A bit underwhelmed as I was really hoping to learn something new. There is a guy called Erwin Muilwijk who is publishing a series of books and articles about the Netherlands contribution to the campaign including a lot of very rare Dutch journals, letters and reports. I'm not sure how reliable these are actually as a primary historical source but I hope to get hold of one and have a look.
This man is lacking in his appreciation of the battle. If Wellington had such a low opinion of the Dutch, why did he anchor the west end of the Allied line with Dutch troops? He knew Napoleon would attempt to flank the allied line which he tried and failed to do a Hougemont farm. Wellington sent in reinforcements late afternoon. As for Prince Billy, being wounded and removed from the battle was the best thing to happen, as more competent Dutch officers took over.
The west end of Wellington's line was heavily concentrated. Chasse's Division was placed in the right rear of Wellington's line. Prince of Orange was wounded very late in the battle. He made tactical errors, but his bravery is what kept many units still fighting on the frontline. He did this during the D'Erlon big attack and was doing the same at the crossroads area. All the Netherlands commanders were doing their part throughout the day of battle too. I think the narrator mostly lacks in not articulating that the 'Netherlands Army' of the time was not Dutch only, but a mixture of also Belgians in the United Netherlands army of the 1815 campaign - and Nassau troops.
we all know "" thin Billy" was no tactiction ! , Ive had numerous debates regarding his poor ( sometimes deadly) deployment of his men .....tAs we all know the french cavalry loved his tactics too !
Yet, the Prince showed strategic wisdom, by supporting his subordinate commanders decision to hold Quatre-Bras, against Wellington's poor orders to evacuate the critical position. If that was captured by Ney on the 15th, there would have been no Waterloo campaign.
I agree. And if Napoleon hadn't brought his army to fight, not one Frenchman would have died. Their deaths are therefore his moral responsibillity, no one else's.
I find it typical for the British to claim this victory even if 75% of his army was Germanic origin and even saved the day. It has been a historical cliche for Brits to vehemently hate Germans and this extends to the Dutch for being basically Swamp Germans. The Dutch were 17000 men, the Germans 26000, the Prussians 50000 and the Brits only had 24000 men. Ofcourse all the honor went to the British, the Prussians got at least some credit because the Brits would've been annihilated without their reinforcement, the Germans get no mention and the Dutch, who actually saved the day twice get no mention either. It's stuff like this why I don't like the British.
I agree that there is much more to learn about the contribution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the defeat of Napoleon. I was actually hoping you were going to tell us something we didn't already know. Have to say, I'm bitterly disappointed. You seem to have no primary evidence at all to add to our existing knowledge and basically just came here to have a whine about the British version which we already knew to be heavily biased anyway.
I kind of makes me laugh as the battle was the sum of its parts and could have gone either way. By rights l think Napoleon should have won. Wellington was the best allied commander so he did the best with the men he had. It was an awful battle when all is said and done.
Whines on about British neglect of Dutch contribution, mentions casually something about German contribution ... Totally neglects to mention Belgians in the army 😂 ...
@@WaterlooUncoveredthe Netherlands correct ... But Dutch has always exlusively been used for people north of current Belgium. There are Flemish people that want to reunite with the Netherlands. But even they would never want to be called Dutch. Strange really. Nobody in Flanders has a problem with calling their language Dutch (in English). But if ever a reunification would happen a new word would have to be invented in English for all these Dutch speaking people.
Thank you for a very interesting talk. I think that Wellington couldn't give credit to the Dutch for their efforts at Quatre Bras because it would mean he'd have to admit to having made a fundamental error of judgement. Hence, I suspect, his staying quiet . He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that would normally allow subordinates to disobey orders without consequences.
there is no debate that without the Prussians Wellington wouldn't have accepted that battle as all, because he knew being a true professional, that he couldn't beat Napoléon on his own.
It wasn't an Anglo Dutch army either, it was an Anglo, Dutch Belgian, German (Nassau, Hannover, Braunschweig) army - well the strijd must seemingly go on.
The Duke of Brunswick was killed at Quatre Brass, where his units along with the Belgians / Dutch played an all important task.
I wonder how the Belgians do feel to be addressed as Dutch.
The whole Dutch-Belgian issue is a bit awkward but I tend to use 'Dutch' as the short form even though it's inaccurate. The more accurate term would be the United Netherlands or the Kingdom of the Netherlands but Netherlanders tends to get confused with the later construct. Of course the British tended to refer to troops from this kingdom by none of these titles preferring to refer to them a 'Blue Germans' to distinguish them from the 'Red Germans' who fought in British uniforms.
You are correct about Wellington though it is unlikely that he would have offered battle at Waterloo had he not be aware that the Prussians were intent on joining him there. His only real concern being whether they would arrive in time to influence the outcome.
I've seen a report somewhere to the effect that Wellington met Blucher on the evening of the 17th and agreed to stand at Waterloo having been assured that he would get the support on the 18th of Bulow's corps, which was not engaged at Lingy. Apparently his alternate plan was to abandon Brussels and make a stand on the banks of the Scheldt River.
I listed very carefully and waited very patiently to get to the Dutch perspective. It never came and I was disappointed. As you are a professor I did expect more details about the Battle from the Dutch perspective as well as numbers and deployment of those troops . What many lectures like this fail to mention is the fact that Wellington had an agreement with Blucher that he would come to the battle. Wellington on that basis decided to offer battle to the French. This was a plan which negates the idea that the Prussians appeared by chance to save Wellington.If I was marking this as an assigned paper the mark would be a measly 50%
A very welcome lecture. As for the young Dutch and Belgian soldiers I ask myself if, at their age, I could have stood to and marched and fought and marched through a terrible storm and stood to after a miserable night and faced D'Erlon's Corp. No I couldn't. They were brave and good allies then as they always have been and are today. I am very proud of them.
Thank you for this lecture!
Heel boeiend en verhelderend, dankuwel. We rijden vaak langs als we vanuit Frankrijk terug naar Nederland gaan en elke keer weer dat mooie grote bord "Waterloo, champs de bataille".. We gaan nu echt een keertje kijken en wisten niet dat de Nederlandse inbreng zo groot was.
When I look at most comments it is clear that the Dutch have had a much to important influence on English history and that many British still can't cope with that. All that is bad is mentioned "Dutch" in there language. They easily forget (deny) that they have been saved from an absolute monarch by William III of Orange, also becoming their King. Her created the Bank of England, laying the foundation for British credibility and the British Empire. By the way, Wellington and William I did not like eachother. One of the reasons why William I had a mountain with a Lion constructed on the battlefield. Hey guys, you can't change history. Read the memoires of Napoleon, can be interesting aswell.
Are you off your fucking head? Every year, particularly in Scotland and Ireland but in England too, 10s of thousands of people celebrate the accession of William III. We don't "forget (deny)being saved...by William III of Orange". He is the most feted monarch of any of the four nations in the entire history of our islands.
Really enjoyed that thank you.
I love the 5th Dutch Militia and the amazing fight they put up at Quatre Bras. Lt. Colonel Jan Westenberg exhibited fine leadership and the Militia showed courage in the face of tremendous odds against theM.
A very enjoyable and informative lecture. Thank you.
The British bias was really a Wellington bias. The “Iron Duke” was ruthless at self-promotion and steam-rolled over anyone and everyone who might detract from “his” victory. And he was incredibly successful, becoming a major international celebrity for the next fifty years or so, and one of the most famous men in the world.
The British had indeed been something special during the Peninsular War, but most of the regiments present at Waterloo (with a few key exceptions) were fairly raw, and don’t seem to have performed very much better than their allies.
Getting fed up with so many books and TH-cams that assert the British assume Waterloo was a totally British under Wellington thing as if it is a revelation.
Age 10 to 13, at a typcal Engish prep (small, private, boarding of the type you would expect to push a British jingoism perspective) school, in the 1960s, I only ever heard or read that it was a combined effort - almost as thought teachers and history books were at pains to stress the importance of combined efforts and how to make them work. Wellington stood because he trusted Blucher to march. Blucher marched because he trusted Wellington to stand - cue lessons in trust. Wellington's army was cobbled together from scraps of whoever was available with a large number of his best troops being Germans - and, of course, Blucher's army was all German (well, to be exact, Germany didn't exist then, they were Prussians). Most of his Peninsular veterans were retired or in America or elsewhere in the world.
I've been interested in Waterloo ever since because of the personalities, characteristics, relationships, chances, luck, preparations, etc, and how they were handled as a lesson in how to handle such complexity. Much later, Wellington did emphasise his role to the detriment of others but his first comment was about how it was a "close run thing". The rain and muddy ground that delayed the French from starting the battle also delayed Blucher's arrival - no rain might have led to early start but would have led to early arrival too.
I've always been taught the same . A joint plan and a combined effort. There's no secret or conspiracy that I've come across to diminish the contribution of the allied nations. It's all readily available in any book . Yet you only have to mention Waterloo and you'll get jumped on by people on here claiming the British don't give enough credit and it was all about the Prussians 'saving our asses ' Really? What on earth do they think we are taught ??
Likewise, this is really old news for most British people with an interest in history and I'm not really sure why it's such a surprise for foreign historians. Perhaps, if they spent a bit more time considering why Britain places such an importance on Waterloo they might actually get beyond stating the obvious and manage to put it some logical perspective.
Couldn't agree more with these comments! I too was taught at a prep school, and by my father a military historian, that the Waterloo campaign was an Allied operation, and above all, cooperation. Several of my history teachers had been on active service in WW2 and knew all about the importance of allies in their own military experience. I gave my first talk on Wellington at the age of 13, can't remember the content, but hope it reflected the balanced interpretation of my teachers!
Even the 1970 film shows very clearly a joint effort, with the Prussians as equal partners. It doesn’t perhaps show quite how multi-national Wellington’s army was, but that can perhaps be expected in terms of keeping the narrative simple for the audience.
Good point well made. I did Higher (A level equiv)History in Glasgow in the 1970s and it was definitely described as an Allied win. What's more, as good Presbyterians, there was also discussion about it having an element of Protestant states working in cooperation. It came as a surprise to be told by non-Brits that we claimed victory alone.
Hi Ben, is the book to be released in English?
stopped watching as soon as modern politics was mentioned
I would love to see the Knoop version of the campaign as I imagine it would provide interesting additional information.
Hello Ben Schoenmaker.
I think that you should publish your book ‘Waterloo 200 year struggle’ in English. I for one would be very interested.
When I was about ten I received for Christmas a book on the battle of Waterloo, and was surprised to discover how many different nationalities were present on the Allied side.
I agree with you that the battle was/is presented as a British victory, whereas in reality it was an Allied victory over Napoleon Bonaparte. It is important to remember that Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington as the C-in-C of the ‘Anglo Dutch’ forces used the victory for his own personal gain, politically and otherwise. Also he was not necessarily that trusting of the Netherlands forces (Dutch-Belgian) as not long previously they had been part of the Grand Armée (as you say). Or did he just say this to discredit their performance in the Waterloo Campaign?
Napoleon could not have been defeated at Waterloo without the combined efforts of all those involved. Wellingtons army would have been smaller without the Dutch-Belgians in his army or the Brunswicker’s, Hanoverian’s, Kings German Legion, or those from Nassau. And without the Prussians Napoleon would have had more troops available to concentrate against Wellington. After all d’Erlon’s Corps spent the day marching back and forth between the Prussians and the Allies at Waterloo answering separate requests for his aid from Napoleon and Ney. Also remember that Napoleon committed a part of his army to fight the Prussians at Wavre.
Wellingtons troops were not all of the quality that he had in the Peninsular, mainly because after Napoleons previous defeat the British Exchequer cut the army. Neither was Napoleons army of the quality of the Grand Aimée he squandered in 1812, and was finally defeated in 1813. Yes many of his veterans returned to the colours, but he also had to recruit many conscripts nicknamed ‘Marie-Louise’s’. Also Napoleon was still suffering with the problem of finding quality mounts for his cavalry, a problem haunting him from the 1812 Russian Campaign. Something the Coalition army’s did not suffer.
I end by asking you to publish your book in English.
its nice to get the other side as a wargamer on the battle of waterloo and seeing how many parts of the anlgo amry work together to stop the France at waterloo
Wish there were more details; a good effort.
But - Not accurate in his comment about the Quatre-Bras positioning being Dutch - in origins.
In reality it was a 3 way decision....
The first Allied commander to react decisively in concentrating at the crossroads, was the Nassau (German) Brigade commander Prince Bernard Saxe-Weimar - a German born young commander. His decision was confirmed shortly after by his Netherlands Army superiors - namely, General Perponcher (Dutch), in consultation with the able Gen. Constant Rebecque ( Swiss). The Prince of Orange had authority to countermand the decision and follow Wellington's orders to evacuate the crucial position, but he instead sided with the 3 way decision. A point ignored by Prince of Orange critics.
20:00 - It's a false impression by repeating that the Dutch were conducting the fighting retreat to defend the crossroads; the Netherlands force in the action was a composite of Dutch, Belgians and Nassau (Germans).
28:00 Not all of Bijlandt's brigade retreated; and only did so after trying to fight the big French columns alone initially. Bijlandt was bayonet wounded in that fight, and some of the Dutch Belgian soldiers were in the counter-attack against D'Erlon. He also fails to mention Ghingy and Merlen's Dutch-Belgian cavalry which advanced to try rescue the British Heavy cavalry.
I was interested in this as I've read Peter Hofschroer's books on the campaign as well as William Sibornes and several other histories. Unfortunately, I found the long preamble somewhat boring as there was nothing new and gave up actually watching when I realised I was counting the number of 'Errs!' rather than listening to the words in-between. I may come back and have another go once I've woken up again and start somewhere beyond the halfway point in the hope that by then we will be talking about the Dutch contribution.
its nice to hear a different take on things . and well presented
I Certainly do not agree with your comments re it was a " British " battle it has always been one where the Brits fought with their Allies and the Prussians forced marching from a Battle earlier in the week to crush the French right flank . I have listened and watched with interest to the others Lectures multiple times but will put this one down to 39 minuets wasted ....
Indeed. The British perspective was a joint effort. That's what we are taught. If your country describes Waterloo as a British victory that's your own Ignorance and a failing of your education system, not ours.
Ive always been interested in The Dutch contribution. So we have a book written in Dutch in 2015. Really helpful.
Then immediately a sneer at Brexit. How sad.
Thank you for your presentation and thank you for using my language to explain your point of view. I have a number of books on the Dutch/Belgian contribution at Quatre Bras and Waterloo, so although I did not learn much that was new, as a history graduate it is always nice to hear a different perspective. I do hope you will present another lecture, it would be useful to learn more details about the Dutch/Belgian Army, personalities and units involved in the campaign and particularly at Quatre Bras, which in itself is a fascinating battle but tends to be over shadowed by the action at Waterloo. Thanks again.
When one is examining the reasons why the British were so xenophobic during that era, one must not forget that Great Britain was practically the only European nation that had fought the French from the very beginning of the Revolutionary Wars right until the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
All other nations had at one time or another initially fought the French, were then defeated and subsequently became allies of France and finally had fought for Napoleon in several of his campaigns (albeit not always voluntarily, it must be admitted), including the Dutch and Belgians, most of the German states including Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Austria, many Italian states and of course Spain, which initially had been allied to France. The only nation not on this list was Portugal, Britain's old allies (but even the Portugeuse had troops fighting for Napoleon in Russia) and of course German troops from Hanover and Brunswick. Facing such odds and formidable coalitions of nations over 20 years of bitter warfare on land and at sea, the British had no reason to trust or like most other European nations and this bias and dislike was clearly shown in the British press and literature of the age.
As for Wellington, he had good reason to mistrust many of his Dutch- Belgian troops and especially their commanders, many of whom had fought loyally for the French and Napoleon all of their military lives, some even not long ago against Wellington and the British during the Peninsular War. That his doubts about their loyalty were unfounded in the outcome sadly didn't change his opinion, in particular when compiling his after- battle report. In fact, many of these troops acted very bravely and no unit deserted to the French during the battle, which Wellington had feared might happen. Furthermore, Wellington might well have been peeved that it was the Dutch- Belgian force at Quatre Bras that had saved his face - and possibly the whole campaign - by bravely defending the crossroads he had initially neglected until he could reinforce them with British units. Wellington had overlooked the importance of Quatre Bras and he was not the type of person to look kindly on anybody who reminded him of this blunder, i.e. the Dutch and Belgians.
I’m English, I agree Waterloo should be portrayed as an allied victory, with everyone playing a key role, the British could not not have won without the Prussians and Dutch allies, but equally the Prussians and Dutch couldn’t have won without the British. I also think because the allied forces were commanded by Wellington and British officers, and they did most of the fighting at Waterloo, it makes sense to give the British a lot of credit that they rightfully deserve, British troops held key points on the line and the British commanders did a very good job, so we deserve a lot of glory for our large contribution, but I do think we take TOO much credit, without the Prussians attacking Napoleons right flank and rear at Waterloo, it’s likely he would have broken Wellingtons forces, who were defending very well, but still beginning to buckle, it likely would have looked like the battle of Wagram or similar to lingy, with a close fight but ultimately Napoleon taking the field, that was until the Prussians tipped the balance.
Also at Quatre bras, the Dutch saved the day and arguably saved Wellingtons campaign from a serious blunder, the Prince of orange deserves more recognition for defying orders and defending the vital cross roads indeed!
Wellington was no doubt a very good commander, probably the best out of the allied leaders in the 100 days campaign, and British troops played a key role at hougomont and defending the French cavalry charges, but when we claim all the credit I feel slightly ashamed, we NEEDED good allies like Blücher and the prince of orange to make us all victorious. We British have always been good at propaganda, we made it out like we defeated the ‘monster’ Napoleon! We have a lot to be proud of, but we need to honour the team effort more
Nice to see an unusual perspective, and thank you for the pleasant and interesting presentation, but it’s become a hobby of mine to argue against slanted accounts of this battle, referring as much as possible to primary evidence, and I have quite a few points about the video to discuss. It’s a habit for me at the moment and I’ve kept a large database of notes on Waterloo, so hopefully someone finds this interesting.
To address the issues in the order presented, the first is the idea that UK monuments to Waterloo are unfair to Wellington’s allies because they mostly commemorate British participants. The most glaring point here is that the “Butte du Lion” monument to the Dutch commander the Prince of Orange is actually gigantic, though it doesn’t appear so in the photo supplied. The battlefield itself had its topography radically changed in the 1820’s when the Dutch government constructed this, and it dominates the entire field, so I don’t think it’s surprising if Wellington wasn’t thrilled with it.
I’m not going to start on Peter Hofschröer’s book here as I don’t have enough time. Some of the primary evidence relating to Waterloo is contradictory, but historians like Hofschröer (and many others) have defied common sense and clear logic as well as entire cohorts of corroborated eyewitness evidence from veteran British officers. Hofschröer himself has been convicted of serious crimes including crimes of dishonesty (though I believe these aren’t directly related to the problems with this publications).
Regarding the military experience of the Netherlanders at Waterloo, many of them were in fact veterans, though they had previously fought for Napoleon, and, despite the fact that Wellington’s army was essentially defending the Netherlands from Napoleonic dictatorship, this limited their trustworthiness in the eyes of the other Allied commanders. Thus, despite the initiative shown at Quatre Bras by the Prince of Orange (who happened to have his HQ nearby), his countrymen were largely placed in reserve at Waterloo, as discussed below.
The presenter goes on to state that the action at Quatre Bras started around noon, and that the “first hours” constituted a tenacious delaying action by the Dutch. He doesn’t refer to evidence here. The French historian Henry Houssaye (“1815: Waterloo”), who based his work on French primary reports and was no friend of the British evidence, states that the French attack didn’t start till after 2 pm, and that Picton’s British division arrived at 3 pm. British reports say 3 pm or even earlier for the latter, e. g. Major Winchester of the Gordon Highlanders wrote “between two and three o’clock” in his letter to the historian William Siborne. Apparently, large Hanoverian and Brunswick units arrived very soon after. However, in defence of the presenter here, I believe there were small skirmishes prior to the main attack.
I also think it’s notable that the force under the Prince of Orange that occupied Quatre Bras earlier in the day was not entirely Dutch - it actually consisted of Bylandt’s Dutch-Belgian brigade and a much stronger brigade of professionals from the German Duchy of Nassau, along with their attached artillery. When attacked by the French, who had greatly superior numbers initially, the main body of this force was driven back into the Wood of Bossu. However, British historians including William Siborne have noted that the 5th Dutch Militia Battalion bravely held the advanced post of the Farm of Gemioncourt for some time, and that this withstood multiple direct attacks before falling to the French infantry.
As hinted by the presenter, accusations of bias against 19th century British historians are essentially directed at William Siborne, who did the vast majority of the contemporary research, but in fact Siborne described the actions of non-British troops in great detail. Regarding the action at Gemioncourt, he noted that “The manner in which His Royal Highness [the Prince of Orange] personally led on his National Militia on this occasion, was distinguished by the most resolute and conspicuous gallantry”.
In contrast, Houssaye was not as complimentary to the Dutch-Belgians, writing that “The Netherlanders posted on the first line were not sufficiently numerous to sustain this attack. Bachelu had no difficulty in forcing back the 27th Chasseurs on Piraumont. When they reached the heights by the Lairalle farm, Jamin's brigade, led by Foy, made head against the left column; it forced back the 2nd Nassau battalion, routed the 5th battalion of the militia from Gémioncourt, the remnant of which had re-formed on the west of the road, and then retreated toward the Bossu wood.”
On the main battle on the 18th, the presenter begins by noting the dispersed nature of Dutch deployments. The idea that they were on both flanks is only really true if you count the troops from the German Duchy of Nassau as Dutch. I believe they were nominally under the command of the Prince of Orange, and of course there was no German nation then, so this isn’t entirely unfair. However, most of the Dutch-Belgians were deployed in reserve to the north-west of Hougomont, with one of division at Halle, some 16 km in that direction. Their cavalry was also in reserve, well behind the front line. Most of their troops stayed in reserve for most or all of the day.
One exception to this, as noted by the presenter, was the two infantry brigades of General Chasse’s division, which were brought forward to add support to Wellington’s centre just prior to the attack of Napoleon’s Imperial Guard, right at the end of the battle. However, the involvement of these brigades in driving back that attack was only very peripheral. Describing all the evidence for this would require an essay thousands of words long, but briefly, several British officers wrote to William Siborne to the effect that D'Aubreme’s brigade, which stood behind the British Guards, came under fire and showed signs of wanting to retreat, before Vandeleur’s British light cavalry brigade prevented this. The other brigade, under Detmer, was brought forward east of the British and fired on a column of line infantry from D’Erlon’s corps, which had been sent forward to attack Wellington’s centre on the flank of the Imperial Guard. This column retreated, so the Dutch-Belgians are due significant credit here, as is Dutch-Belgian artillery, and this has been well acknowledged by British historians.
Besides their artillery and some cavalry involvement, the only other notable exception to the generally secondary role played by the Dutch-Belgians in the battle was that highlighted in the video of Bylandt’s infantry brigade, which was placed up front with Picton’s division in the centre-left of the Allied main line. Funnily enough, I see this brigade’s actions more positively than the author appears to. Firstly, it seems they were largely or entirely placed ahead of the main position, alongside the British 95th Rifles, apparently to act as skirmishers. For example, General Kempt wrote that “the 95th Regiment was in front of the other regiments of my brigade, occupying a knoll in front of some broken ground as light troops, and in a line with a considerable corps of Belgian and Nassau infantry”. Therefore, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that they left a hole in the line when they retreated. Further, although some British histories do give the impression that Bylandt’s brigade broke and left the field, I believe some or perhaps many of them did remain to help with wounded and prisoners. Also in their defence, they were heavily exposed to artillery early in the battle, compounding their substantial losses at Quatre Bras, and it was said by 19th British historians (e.g. James Shaw Kennedy) that their positioning at Waterloo appeared unjust. Others have implied that Wellington used the brigade as bait to lure the French to attack in the area of Picton’s strong division of British veterans, which was backed by the two British heavy cavalry brigades, positioned out of sight. If this is true, it can at least be said that the ploy worked, because the French attack was quickly and decisively defeated.
I also don’t agree entirely with the author’s implication that the role of the Nassau battalion at Hougoumont is not given due credit in British literature. I have also made a study of this point, and, in fact, there is quite strong eyewitness evidence that the Nassauers weren’t there in force for long. British historians have diplomatically ignored this evidence, though the early ones also didn’t give much about the Nassau contribution as described by members of their battalion. I wrote a comment of similar length to this about that controversy under the video “Blood in the Orchard”, posted on this site.
Finally, my contentious side, which was raised in the forum of scientific peer review, can’t resist adding that the idea that Knoop was “the most important military historian of the 19th century” seems to me similar to the foregoing statement that 17 June 1815, on which there was no significant fighting, was the most important day of the campaign. I enjoy discussing Waterloo, so if anyone has further information or arguments, please let me know.
very good comment
Thabk you for your analysis. Enjoyed it!
Quote: "Napoleon came from Elba with peaceful intent" (7:30). Really? Why did he need an army then?
Liz Weasel Napoleon left Elba with a bodyguard of 1000 troops. Napoleon sought peace but he had to be in a position to defend France from the European allies which were massing to invade France. Europe were in no mood to negotiate with Bonaparte which is why he rolled the dice and attacked the allied and Prussian armies in the Netherlands.
You could also ask why does Switzerland have an army!
@@ianknight2053 You're winding me up, aren't you?!! He was a cocky little man who wanted to take over as much of Europe as he could. He provided a model for another cocky little man, this time an Austrian, who wanted to do the same just over 120 years later! Of course they both wanted to be able to do it with peaceful intent! Why fight after all if you can get away with it. They both wanted to take over Europe and invade the UK, and they both invaded Russia and duly paid the correct price. They both had the same strange idea that they could do precisely whatever they wanted and that nobody would mind. He, like Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, caused the deaths of many thousands of people. He was altogether a nasty little piece of work.
@@lizweasel2793 In 1815, Napoleon was not so young anymore . France was tired of wars . Say what you will, but Napoleon was also a good caretaker . He gave us sets of Law ( Codes Napoléon ) he was a good administrator . In 1815 he was no young hothead going to war but war was forced on him by his ennemies who wanted to get rid of him . Also he never did massacre millions of people in camps so was no model for the little Austrian ! Napoleon took power in 1800, yes but . Uk was at war with him but in 1805 is was Austria and Russia who declared war on him . In 1806 it was Prussian and Russia ...so yes he went to war ...but was not always the one who began the war ..
@@lizweasel2793 "They both had the same strange idea that they could do precisely whatever they wanted and that nobody would mind." The concept of the right of the strongest was a universal truth for all of history until very recently when some in Europe and the US have gotten the misguided idea that weakness is a strength. Every nation that fought in the campaigns of 1814 and 1815 thought exactly as you described. Every nation state, people and group that is worthy of mention in a history book applied that principle. That might makes right.
Whereas British forces respected sovereignty and remained in Britain throughout the 19th century..... Oh wait.
Very interesting and thanks for delivering it in English.
Ben Schoenmakers narrative is very pro-Dutch as it should be, the British narrative is Pro Britain as it also should be. Very odd reference towards Brexit though, I didn't understand that part, Ben seems irritated by the English, good episode though
Perhaps Britain should have let the Dutch and Germans fight Bonaparte on their own to see how they would have fared!
I love the presentation of a much less commented on aspect. Waterloo had a huge German speaking contingent but Germany did not exist in 1815. It was an Allied victory.
With a double helping of Hanover. As the Elector of Hanover, King George had an automatic alliance with Hanover (assuming no schizophrenia). Plus the King's German Legion were troops raised in Hanover, but serving in the Royal Army.
Ah, the good old days, when rulers had to keep track of their titles to avoid the embarrassment of declaring war on themselves.
3761 ehhs and ums.
Thank you. It’s refreshing and enlightening to get a different take on this.
Dutch forces numbered around 17,000 versus 31,000 British. Nassau, Hanover and Brunswick contributed 20,000 making British forces less than half. Prussia deserves equal praise for their attacks at Plancenoit which forced Napoleon to use half his Imperial Guard simply to hold his flank. Truly Waterloo was a coalition victory under nominal British leadership but the price for victory is paid in blood contributed by all.
Wellington distrusted those in the Anglo-Dutch army who had previously fought for Napolean. No wonder little credit was given!
The Brits rave about Hougemont A battle within a battle.
Somewhat over-stated and biased account of the Dutch participation and there are plenty of points with which one could argue.
First, Trafalgar and Waterloo did not usher in the period of British dominance. That had been done some 50 years before in the Seven Years War - now regarded as the first truly global conflict. The status attained by 1759 would ensure Britain’s pre-eminence despite the subsequent loss of the American colonies. What the Napoleonic victories did was to reveal the wealth and economic power that had by then been established.
It has been said that over half of Napoleon’s troops marched on Waterloo wearing boots manufactured in England. Whether this is true or not, it is undoubtably the case that the Royal Navy triumphed in part, because they benefitted from greater investment than their rivals and that Britain was able to underwrite the cost of almost continuous warfare for over 15 years through the various successive alliances. She also had weapons generally of better quality - the Baker rifle, the lethal 1796 pattern sabre. All this points to a nation already ahead in the stakes.
Second point is that Waterloo has always been taught in England as a convincing victory, but one based on alliances - the so called ‘United Nations’ ( the title later to be adopted for the organisation we now know as such). Also that as Wellington himself called it - 'a damned near run thing’ as much dependent on his allies, good fortune and the late arrival of Blucher. It is the significance of the battle, the assurance that Britain would become the uncontested global leader in its aftermath, the long peace that followed, - the turning point of history that is recognised, not arrogance though Englishmen always take some satisfaction from the defeat of their oldest enemy.
Perhaps Wellington’s modesty also declined with age and his tendency towards self-deprecation diminished with success and the recognition that he had called it pretty much right from the start and outwitted maybe the greatest military tactician ever. He chose the ground and positioned his army effectively to the ‘reverse slope’ theory he had himself evolved to counter French superiority in artillery. He had equally lived down the insult Napoleon cast upon him calling him merely a ‘general of sepoys’.
Then it was the culmination of hard experience and skills won through the years of the Peninsular War that had produced a professional and hardened army whilst Napoleon had squandered his. Many of the veteran units were not present at Waterloo having been variously disbanded or sent to Canada and such, but the core of Wellington’s troops had been through that campaign, they knew how to win and they knew when to stand their ground. Many of the allied units did not and were distributed along the line between more hardened corps. The resilience of the infantry squares was however crucial in weathering the battle. Equally logistical support learnt in the years in Spain.
A significant percentage of ‘British’ troops were in fact German. Mostly Hanoverians of the King’s German Legion. They were regular troops within the command structure of the British army, not least the 400 odd men who defended La Haye Sainte at the allied centre and whose story is best told by Brendan Simms in the excellent ‘The Longest Afternoon’. It is perhaps this handful of men to whom the victory really belongs.
Wellington was rightly pre-occupied with his right flank and accordingly sent the Guards to defend Hougoumont. Even this ‘battle within a battle’ was not entirely an Anglo-French affair, again with German participation.
(The Hanoverians were originally recruited to the defence of Gibraltar in 1779. Their descendants would fight against the British in Flanders during 1917/8 - see Ernst Junger ‘In Stahlgewittern’.)
Had the allied armies failed then like as not the Austrian and Russians would have eventually defeated Napoleon. His course was pretty much run, his forces depleted. The Grande Armée lay as corpses on the road back from Moscow. The money was spent, whilst the British seemed to have bottomless pockets. Perhaps what the Dutch contributed more to Waterloo than armed forces was in teaching commerce to the British in the century before. One might look at history from many angles, but for certain Waterloo was won with British money as much as it was won with British blood. Were it not for Dutch influence in banking and finance then perhaps we would all be speaking French.
The wider point entirely missed by everyone is that Napoleon is the foundation of modern Europe, egalitarian society based on meritocracy, democratic principles and codified laws. The British still appear to be fighting against the intellectual weight of the enlightenment. Waterloo was the lasting victory for the status quo within England and not much has changed since.
Agreed.
The big pivot point of the Dutch pain about Waterloo is that the Dutch and Belgium (one country then) are completely written away.
the Dutch (and Belgian) contribution is portrayed as a cowardly and stupid contribution.
which didn't matter at all.
Dan Vigodny I agree with a lot of that, but disagree with a few points. 1) I don't think Napoleon was the greatest tactician. His major decisive tactical win against odds was Austerlitz, and after that the majority of his battles were costly and closely contested. In contrast, Hannibal thrashed vastly superior forces in huge battles just about every time he put on armour. 2) The KGL are invariably counted as German when people look at numbers from each country, though they were of course raised by Brits and trained and housed in the UK. 3) Napoleon could still have been a force in 1815 if he had won Waterloo. According to Siborne he would have soon conscripted two million men, and his 1814 campaign showed that he could inflict defeats on the Russians and Prussians against heavy odds. Also, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would presumably have shortly been back under his control. 4) Although the Napoleonic wars helped hasten the end feudalism in much of Europe, the antecedent of the French revolution clearly was the British progression towards individual rights that began with Magna Carta. Napoleon didn't support universal suffrage but he did reintroduce slavery in the French colonies and enforce totalitarian rule both in France and his conquered territories.
Ive never hea4d avout a Dutch brigade withdrawing.
Frankly, I found myself waiting for more depth in regard to the Dutch involvement in the battle itself. Nothing new here.
Given that Prof Schoenmaker is speaking in a language not his own I can forgive the umm-ing and ah-ing. The promotion of Hofschroer and the anti-Brexit comment, not so much. Such unprofessionalism relegates much of what he has to say.
King George a Hanovarian was German.
He was born in London and never went to Germany. His father was born in London and never went to Germany. His grandfather moved to the UK in his early 20s. His great grandmother was daughter of James VI of Scotland. How German does that make him?
Very interesting lecture, it did raise the hackles a bit though. It got me thinking, while I think I know quite a bit about this battle it has mainly been from an English perspective, while I knew the Dutch were there, I only knew they had fallen back during d Erlon's attack. Perhaps it is time to get a new perspective.
have a look at napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_Cowards.html
This is so twisted and biased. I f you are trying to be fair to the forces under Wellington then why do you continuously call them Anglo - Dutch ..... there were more forces under Wellington (besides the British) who were not Dutch ..... (Belgium, Hanover, Nassau, Brunswick) ...... than Dutch.
Did the Dutch close the gates at Hougoumont?
Was it the Dutch Scots Grey`s who drove the French attack away?
Was it the Dutch `Thin Red Line` guards who stood up in front of Napoleon's never defeated Old Guard and drove them back.
Do you think Wellington would rather have had 17,000 more British troops than the Dutch ones he had?
Can you please tell me what the (bif Luik ) means ? 4 korps VON BÙLOW ( bif Luik ) - i know some Niederlàndisch , but no clue ? Best guess i got (viel glück )? ( sturm troop ) ? Please tell me - Danke ! HUSAR ! meine kinder !
In English, near to, or around Liege. Luik in Dutch.
Perfect presentation 👍🏻🤩thx
What no one tells you either is Napoleon just didn't have French with him at the battle of Waterloo, He had Spanish, Polish also Irish troops with them which you hardly hear about.
Tell us about these Irish and Spanish troops fighting for the French at Waterloo and please list your sources.
Saying that the Dutch can claim credit because it was fought on their soil is like saying Spain won the battle of Salamanca.
To a certain extent, the entire focus on nationality in this debate is a failure to understand history. The armies that fought in this campaign were NOT truly national armies in the modern sense of the word. He mentions for example how many Germans were serving in the ranks of the British Army at the time, but fails to mention all the other nationalities represented not only in the British ranks but also in the French, Prussian and Netherlands Armies. The Orange-Nassau troops were, for instance, German but serving the King of the Netherlands and there were many foreigners in the French ranks such as Colonel Crabbe, Ney's ADC, and an officer from Belgium who died leading the first charge near La Haie Sainte. These armies were not really national armies but Royal or Imperial armies loyal to their respective Kings and Princes. Their composition and payment was entirely arbitrary. In fact, Prussia was still in dispute over some of the troops who Britain had insisted on making part of the Dutch force because their view was that any man who spoke German should be a Prussian and that argument would eventually lead to the Franco-Prussian War and later The Great War..
Saying that the Dutch Belgians nadsauers etc. Cannot claim victory is plain ignorance or UK supremacisme
@@MrDidz to the contrary Nzpoleonic era is the end of mercenaries big armies and the rise of national armies
@@jacqueswilputte5468 One would have to justify that statement by identifying any army of the period that did not recruit any foreigners into its ranks on a voluntary or mercenary basis.
@@jacqueswilputte5468 And that's just an example of ignorant national bigotry. Contrary to this childish accusation most people who study history in the UK know full well what role the various armies played in the Waterloo campaign and are keen to uncover more details. Which is actually one reason why this video is so disappointing.
Napoleon left Elba with peaceful intent...? He was such a peaceful chap that he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of fatherless children. A great general but had terrible consequences
Most of the wars he fought we declared AGAINST him. He wanted peace since 1800
Maybe Arthur had a premonition that the Dutch would ruin the battlefield for eternity when he said they almost ruined his battle. They obliged him and made a mountain to honor a fool and destroyed acres of archelogy forever.
no sympathy for them!
The fool you mention did save Arthur's ass at Quatre-Bras and Waterloo . He also helped stop the french guard ..not bad for a fool but UK is blind when it wants to get all the glory :-)
If you want a fool, look at the floppy haired kid currently in Number 10! He is a real and genuine fool!
Ok! Well, I finally gritted my teeth and came back to watch the second half of this video hoping to learn more about the Dutch (Netherlands) perspective on the battle of Waterloo. sadly I didn't, which was somewhat disappointing. Most of the relevant content was less informative than say Peter Hofschroers books on The Waterloo Campaign and I basically learnt nothing from this video that I didn't know already and quite honestly if I had I not already known about it then I would have learned far less from watching this than reading a decent book about it. A bit underwhelmed as I was really hoping to learn something new. There is a guy called Erwin Muilwijk who is publishing a series of books and articles about the Netherlands contribution to the campaign including a lot of very rare Dutch journals, letters and reports. I'm not sure how reliable these are actually as a primary historical source but I hope to get hold of one and have a look.
This man is lacking in his appreciation of the battle. If Wellington had such a low opinion of the Dutch, why did he anchor the west end of the Allied line with Dutch troops? He knew Napoleon would attempt to flank the allied line which he tried and failed to do a Hougemont farm. Wellington sent in reinforcements late afternoon. As for Prince Billy, being wounded and removed from the battle was the best thing to happen, as more competent Dutch officers took over.
The west end of Wellington's line was heavily concentrated. Chasse's Division was placed in the right rear of Wellington's line.
Prince of Orange was wounded very late in the battle.
He made tactical errors, but his bravery is what kept many units still fighting on the frontline. He did this during the D'Erlon big attack and was doing the same at the crossroads area. All the Netherlands commanders were doing their part throughout the day of battle too.
I think the narrator mostly lacks in not articulating that the 'Netherlands Army' of the time was not Dutch only, but a mixture of also Belgians in the United Netherlands army of the 1815 campaign - and Nassau troops.
At least the Dutch got the last word / shot in at Waterloo with the Lion.
Best to put Dutch view 8n Dutch
we all know "" thin Billy" was no tactiction ! , Ive had numerous debates regarding his poor ( sometimes deadly) deployment of his men .....tAs we all know the french cavalry loved his tactics too !
Yet, the Prince showed strategic wisdom, by supporting his subordinate commanders decision to hold Quatre-Bras, against Wellington's poor orders to evacuate the critical position. If that was captured by Ney on the 15th, there would have been no Waterloo campaign.
"Poor French Infantry"
I agree. And if Napoleon hadn't brought his army to fight, not one Frenchman would have died. Their deaths are therefore his moral responsibillity, no one else's.
I find it typical for the British to claim this victory even if 75% of his army was Germanic origin and even saved the day. It has been a historical cliche for Brits to vehemently hate Germans and this extends to the Dutch for being basically Swamp Germans. The Dutch were 17000 men, the Germans 26000, the Prussians 50000 and the Brits only had 24000 men. Ofcourse all the honor went to the British, the Prussians got at least some credit because the Brits would've been annihilated without their reinforcement, the Germans get no mention and the Dutch, who actually saved the day twice get no mention either.
It's stuff like this why I don't like the British.
Got Brexit in there.....and I stopped taking him seriously.
I agree that there is much more to learn about the contribution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the defeat of Napoleon. I was actually hoping you were going to tell us something we didn't already know. Have to say, I'm bitterly disappointed. You seem to have no primary evidence at all to add to our existing knowledge and basically just came here to have a whine about the British version which we already knew to be heavily biased anyway.
I kind of makes me laugh as the battle was the sum of its parts and could have gone either way. By rights l think Napoleon should have won. Wellington was the best allied commander so he did the best with the men he had. It was an awful battle when all is said and done.
What a terrible narrator, too many Ummms and Aarrs. Spoilt what could have been a interesting point of view!!.
Had a professor like that in collage, who said AAAAAAAAAAAAAH all the time and he'd put the class asleep "boring"..
I would like to hear a british professor do this in dutch.
Yes@@HamiltonStandard
It's a shame you attempted to connect this with Brexit, please keep your personal political views out of history (it makes you look an arse)
Whines on about British neglect of Dutch contribution, mentions casually something about German contribution ... Totally neglects to mention Belgians in the army 😂 ...
Belgium was part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815.
@@WaterlooUncoveredthe Netherlands correct ... But Dutch has always exlusively been used for people north of current Belgium. There are Flemish people that want to reunite with the Netherlands. But even they would never want to be called Dutch. Strange really. Nobody in Flanders has a problem with calling their language Dutch (in English). But if ever a reunification would happen a new word would have to be invented in English for all these Dutch speaking people.
Please. Narrate in your native language & subtitle. Painfull to listen to in English. Interesting nonetheless.
Douglas Watt pull your horns in...there’s really no issue with his speech.
Did someone steal your poffertjes, mate? I've watched 6 minutes of this and all you've done is kvetch about the Brits.