Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

had been taught that Napoleon had actually won the battle!

 

 

Dear me, surely everyone knows it was the Prussians under Blücher who won the battle - the Iron Duke's Allied army being, by the narrowest of margins, undefeated. 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

98440FD7-B936-41BF-A6A7-DAB37EB1F2A1.jpeg.2d04850b15bb4e91f39f1f8e3ab0ab2a.jpeg

 

“Always the blasted same when they don’t put up the platform for the 5:12 to Guildford until that last moment - carnage!”

  • Like 2
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Dear me, surely everyone knows it was the Prussians under Blücher who won the battle - the Iron Duke's Allied army being, by the narrowest of margins, undefeated. 

 

It seems so obvious to me that neither the Prussian nor Anglo-Allied armies could have turned the engagements of 18th June to a decisive victory without the other, yet so hard, apparently, for historians to accept this simple fact. 

 

That's just British and German historians, of course; everyone knows that no one lies like a Frenchman writing history!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

98440FD7-B936-41BF-A6A7-DAB37EB1F2A1.jpeg.2d04850b15bb4e91f39f1f8e3ab0ab2a.jpeg

 

“Always the blasted same when they don’t put up the platform for the 5:12 to Guildford until that last moment - carnage!”

 

I'd say they were off to Farnbourgh to visit the grave of the Prince-Imperial, then I reflected that this was the wrong Napoleon.  Empires, for the French, are Like monarchies and republics; they go through so many that one tends to lose count.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought that would get you going. I shall retire the mossy shade of my intrados, there continue my lockdown reading - working my way through Mrs Compound's collected works of Georgette Heyer - just finished An Infamous Army, so I'm well up on the subject. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

People treat Waterloo as if it was some kind of decisive event, when it was simply another battle in the eleven hundred year long war between  the Germanic tribes of East Francia and Middle Francia, and the Germanic tribes of West Francia, which all started with the division of the Kingdom of the Franks into three parts on the death of Louis the Pius, Charlemagne's only heir, in AD840, and only ended with the Treaty of Rome in AD1958

Edited by webbcompound
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, webbcompound said:

 ended with the Treaty of Rome in AD1958

 

Or so, until four years ago, we thought.  

 

There is a fashion to debunk all sorts of battles once thought decisive. I hear people do it about Waterloo.  This only goes to prove that in academia, as in all walks of life, we are blessed with many idiots. 

 

It rather depends, of course, on how long your long view is.  Like the housing and stock markets, if you wait long enough, no slump really matters. For those who are destroyed in the meantime, however ....

 

They call it the "long peace of the 1830s" for a reason, and, in general, Waterloo did result in half a century of relative peace in Europe, and a century before the next Europe-wide conflagration. True, for most of that period Britain continued to regard France as the principal threat and a present danger, but, the Napoleonic Wars was the "Great War" so far as people of the Nineteenth Century were concerned.  Such wars and their outcomes can make more than one generation pause for thought before risking another such.  After Waterloo it took a century to forget that a Great War is a bad idea, and then it was the Germans, rather than the French, who decided to risk one.

 

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Roll up that map of Norfolk, it will not be wanted these ten years..”

  • Like 3
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is true, people either only see the present, or they see the long duration. Half a century of peace in Europe, well up to a point. By 1830 the Dutch Belgians were at each others throats. Within France there were serious domestic conflicts at a scale above simple disorder in 1830, 1831, 1832, 1834 and 1838. Within the Germanic sphere there were military conflicts in 1848-51 and 1864  France was also involved in a military adventure in Spain in 1823, and in a major conflict with Austria in Italy in 1859. And of course there was the "year of revolutions" in 1848. Admittedly it was not until after 50 years that things started to accelerate with Prussia going to war against the South Germans in 1866, and subsequently the French German war of 1870.  No global wars, but an amount of serious discomfort for a variety of peasants and bourgeois in a variety of places. If we were to include all the allies of both sides then we have to accept even more warfare involving Russia, Poland and Galicia as well.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webbcompound said:

Well it is true, people either only see the present, or they see the long duration. Half a century of peace in Europe, well up to a point. By 1830 the Dutch Belgians were at each others throats. Within France there were serious domestic conflicts at a scale above simple disorder in 1830, 1831, 1832, 1834 and 1838. Within the Germanic sphere there were military conflicts in 1848-51 and 1864  France was also involved in a military adventure in Spain in 1823, and in a major conflict with Austria in Italy in 1859. And of course there was the "year of revolutions" in 1848. Admittedly it was not until after 50 years that things started to accelerate with Prussia going to war against the South Germans in 1866, and subsequently the French German war of 1870.  No global wars, but an amount of serious discomfort for a variety of peasants and bourgeois in a variety of places. If we were to include all the allies of both sides then we have to accept even more warfare involving Russia, Poland and Galicia as well.

 

A series of largely internal matters.  No general war between western the powers, so relatively peaceful compared with 1690s-1815.

 

HMG tended to wake up when there was a serious threat to the balance of power in Europe. The only example of this was Russia threatening the Ottoman Empire, hence the Great Russian War, fought brilliantly and successfully by the Royal Navy in the Baltic, which I suggest was rather more decisive than events in the Crimean theatre.   

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

the Great Russian War, fought brilliantly and successfully by the Royal Navy in the Baltic, which I suggest was rather more decisive than events in the Crimean theatre.   

 

Around 40 years ago read a children's novel in which the hero was a midshipman in that theatre. What sticks in my mind is the account of the ineffectiveness of the RN's paddlesteamer sloops - not only did the paddles reduce the number of broadside guns (not mitigated by painting faux gunports on the paddleboxs) but once the paddles were shot away, the sloop was unable to manoeuvre. I think in the story it was taken in tow by a sailing sloop, much to the satisfaction of the latter's conservatively-minded captain.

 

EDIT: Following a quick scan of Wikipedia, I find they might both have been frigates rather than sloops.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main drag, I reckon, on the transition to steam in the Navy, was endurance.

 

The school-boy narrative I was given was that early steamships had full suites of sails because steam was not trusted or reliable.

 

That is not really true. The main problem was endurance. The early steam engines were relatively inefficient, thus the cruising endurance of the ship was limited between coalings. Just as early submarines had to spend most of their time above the waves, the steam warships did most of their sailing with, well, sails.

 

It was the advent of better boilers and the efficiency gained by triple expansion that allowed a coal-fired fleet to gain the endurance it needed. 

 

So long as ships needed to combine sail and steam, the steam bits, paddles or screws, were literally a bit of a drag. The advantage of screws is that they could be made to be raised when not in use, though this created its own problems. 

 

See, I'm being a good boy and keeping up with my homework!

  • Like 8
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The main drag, I reckon, on the transition to steam in the Navy, was endurance.

 

 

See, I'm being a good boy and keeping up with my homework!

swot you should be with Matter and Patter having high tea with Nannie  enjoying the long Vac

 

Nick B

Edited by nick_bastable
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

So long as ships needed to combine sail and steam, the steam bits, paddles or screws, were literally a bit of a drag. The advantage of screws is that they could be made to be raised when not in use, though this created its own problems. 

 

See, I'm being a good boy and keeping up with my homework!

 

You're doing well with the Cruisers book!

 

I've just got up to the bit discussing why different sorts of ships were so called, but as far as I'm concerned its fighting for bedtime reading with Roman crime novels and not a race....

 

Fascinating that the first sea-going boilers were more or less the type used for Newcomen beam engines, merely a kettle, no wonder that they were coal-guzzlers and had to rely on sail to eke out the coal.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2020 at 20:19, nick_bastable said:

swot you should be with Matter and Patter having high tea with Nannie  enjoying the long Vac

 

Nick B

 

I think you'l find the whole point of having a nanny was to save mater and pater from having any but the most cursory contact with their heir and spares.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2020 at 11:06, Edwardian said:

 

Or ABBA on the concourse singing Waterloo, causing the dismayed cry of "la garde recule" from parties of French school children, who, of course, had been taught that Napoleon had actually won the battle!

 

 waterloo-20-different-original-lobby-prints_1_c7bfe1107bd4dcfe75e5fe40efaef34a.jpg.a0f15b87e1fbfaa6f0c5d4838fef643d.jpg

 

Knowing our propensity to label fiascos as victories they may have it right. However did they also get told he went to Elba for a holliday?

 

Don

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Och, If Napoleon had been exiled to Ireland he wouldn't have known his erse from his elba........... 

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

I think you'l find the whole point of having a nanny was to save mater and pater from having any but the most cursory contact with their heir and spares.

 

 

It seems in many quite high profile cases the point of having a nanny (as understood by the husband) was to do with convenient opportunities for infidelity...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

I think you'l find the whole point of having a nanny was to save mater and pater from having any but the most cursory contact with their heir and spares.

 

 

Well you know what they say............."Always keep away from children"!  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Napoleon and Waterloo.

I would remind people that, despite the ABBA song, Bonaparte did not surrender immediately after Waterloo, but some days afterwards to Captain Maitland RN of His Majesty's Ship Bellerophon.

 

Re: Early Steamship Boilers.

A major limitation was having to use seawater as boiler feed.

It is too easy to criticise in hindsight. Changes in maritime technology have to be proven in the face of a remorseless adversary; the sea itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, drmditch said:

Re: Napoleon and Waterloo.

I would remind people that, despite the ABBA song, Bonaparte did not surrender immediately after Waterloo, but some days afterwards to Captain Maitland RN of His Majesty's Ship Bellerophon.

 

... four weeks later, on 15 July, though he had abdicated only four days after Waterloo, having failed to gain political support in Paris. The news that the Chamber of Representatives would not continue to support him was brought to him by Regnaud de Saint Jean d'Angely - a name I've only once come across once before, and that in a railway modelling context.

 

Waterloo was not the final battle of the campaign. Apart from the battle of Wavry, commenced on the same day as Waterloo but carrying on into the following day - and a French victory over the Prussian rearguard, the latter's prolonged resistance enabling Blücher to bring the main Prussian force to Waterloo - there were some minor battles at Issy and Sevres before the Allied occupation of Paris on 7 July.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, drmditch said:

Re: Early Steamship Boilers.

A major limitation was having to use seawater as boiler feed.

It is too easy to criticise in hindsight. Changes in maritime technology have to be proven in the face of a remorseless adversary; the sea itself.

When did condensing steam-circuits become typical for ships? I know that battleships were built with then in the last quarter of the 19th century, and I know that they could be a failure point. Canopus, a pre-dreadnought battleship, was stopped at the Falklands with condenser failure in 1914 and thus managed to locate the fleeing German fleet for the battlecruisers to finish off.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to veer off course...

 

Here's one of the new Spitting Image puppets that might amuse the Mayor.

 

1903475795_NewSpittingImageDC_s.jpg.dcae5ecdfd71baca74be0c3a34c67c24.jpg

 

He's having problems...

 

 

Sight.jpg.432d9f894da15a617b3ded57465e85c8.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hroth
Thought of a nifty adjustment...
  • Like 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hroth said:

Just to veer off course...

 

Here's one of the new Spitting Image puppets that might amuse the Mayor.

 

1903475795_NewSpittingImageDC_s.jpg.dcae5ecdfd71baca74be0c3a34c67c24.jpg

 

He's having problems...

 

 

Sight.jpg.432d9f894da15a617b3ded57465e85c8.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

He looks strangely familiar ....

 

Mekon.jpeg.7d498333383482f51e4990e337e8d680.jpeg

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to have problems with his foresight and his hindsight, too.  Seems to manage to get close enough to get the rear-sight in focus, 'though!!

 

Julian

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.