This painting depicts the moment Eleonore Prochaska, an infantryman in the Prussian army, was mortally wounded by French fire at Göhrde. Prochaska was later be discovered to be a woman, who disguised herself as a man to fight against Napoleon. She represents many women in the Napoleonic Wars who would discreetly take up arms for the sake of their countries.
Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte eventually became Napoleon III and restored the French Empire decades after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. Unlike the First Empire, Napoleon III ruled in a more political and diplomatic manner, also focusing on modernizing France and maintaining internal stability. Considering all of this, do you think Napoleon would have liked Louis-Napoléon's style of governance? Would he have been proud of him for returning the Bonapartes to power, or would he have seen him as someone very different from his own vision of the Empire?
Honestly, I just loved him. He was just as charming and energized as they say Napoleon was, while still showing Napoleon's emotional struggles and doubts in his later years, fighting the whole of europe once again.
I quite often hear about his extravagance as king of Westphalia, and also that he was a divisional general at the Battle of Waterloo and corps commander at the beginning of the Russian campaign, and after that he became a marshal under the Second Empire. I understand that the rank of marshal was nominal, but what about his personal skills and participation in the Battle of Waterloo, was he a brave soldier?
I have seen Napoleon being criticised for not accepting the Dresden(or Frankfurt) proposal but here is reasoning completely makes sense.
Anyone know if this prop is based on reality? I haven't seen it in paintings.
It seems pretty cool and I am thinking of having one made for myself.
Do you guys think that using Murat at Waterloo would have made any changes? I mean obviously Ney made a huge mistake when he charged like that but with the Prussians arriving i don't know if the defeat could've been avoided.
So what is your opinion on Murat and if his presence would have made a change?
Been wondering why Napoleon never bothered to return to Spain seeing how the British were still creating problems for the French there.
Through the course of the Seven years war Frederick won 7 battles and lost 3
And those against horrible(Charles of Lorraine etc..) to mid commander(Daun,Laudon)
Archduke Charles went against much tougher foes from Jourdan,Moreau(Already better than Daun and Laudon),Massena and Napoleon himself and snag victories from them
Duckoleon just released a free update, and now the game is also free on Steam. The update adds a new map and new nations to play. What do you think of this new update?
François-Marie, marquis de Barthélemy picked as Revolutionary France's most influential diplomat.
Duplicates are allowed.
The other man really looks like him.
I’ve watched it twice now. It cuts some corners but it’s excellent in my opinion I think Clavier plays the role well. I want to see what other members of this sub think about it, especially in comparison to Waterloo, the much older Napoleon movies, or Ridley Scott’s disaster of an attempt.
Its 450 yards from the cross roads behind the sand pit to the three way intersection thats now just north of the current Lion Mound. Halkett's location is usually centered on that three way intersection. The map from the Waterloo Assoc. that one labeled Second Attack shows a gap of 300 yards from left flank of Halkett's 5th brigade to the right flank of Ompteda's brigade. And shows both Kruse and Detmer inside there represented as 100m wide blocks.
https://www.waterlooassociation.org.uk/2018/05/31/attack-of-the-imperial-guard/
then later in the Third Attack map they have Detmers in 6 columns, taking up some 250 yards. These are battalion columns and if following standard practice, some 40+ men wide and about 12 men deep. So perhaps a 50 yard frontage realistically and you need gaps between the columns too; for horse artillery, heavy cavalry, skirmishers, scouts, guys running under cannons, etc. That just doesnt seem like enough space to hold all that.
For example the 5 battalions of Middle guard that are attacking this area are about the same size as Detmer's 3100 man brigade and they are possibly 5 columns, but more like 3 in mixte order formation and one or two others in column. And these take up almost that entire 450 yard corridor as shown in the maps.
almost none of the officers in Waterloo Letters that are part of Siborne's legacy mentioned Detmer's role at the climax of the charge although several of them in Halkett's 5th brigade do recall the Brunswickers being in rear and to the left of Colin Halkett's brigade; identifying them by white insignia (crossbones) on their Shakos.
It seems accepted that Kruse's brigade was driven back leaving Brunswick's indep division between Ompteda on their left and Halkett on their rights. Its possible both these Halkett's 5th and Brunswick were driven back somewhat
Even though the Waterloo Letters are maligned, at least one British officer in the Waterloo Letters did see them:
Lt COl Taylor of the 10th Hussars in Vivian's brigade must have seen both the Brunswickers driven back and the advance of Detmers: on p172 of the Waterloo Letters:
" ...they rather fell back upon us and one battalion of Brunswick Oels in close columns retiring being in want of ammunition, I believe, but in good order was now passing through us between my squadron and Major HOwards. Just then two or three battalions to the left of it advanced in double quick their drums rolling and drove back the enemy.."
Interesting that he mentions the double quick pace because Chasse himself recalls ordering the Storm Cadence and others mention that pace as well; presumably a double quick step.
Two or three battalions in column makes a lot more sense given the spacing involved
waterloo letters can be seen here:
https://archive.org/details/waterlooletterss00sibo/page/150/mode/2up
At least one officer from Halkett's brigade did see the Dutch attack. Im not sure the original source this quote from a prior thread on reddit:
British eyewitness (captain Edward Macready, 2/30th regiment of Foot), wrote: "The Dutch troops advanced in a state of high excitement, cheering wildly and lifting their shakos on their bayonets."
Macready fought in the left most (comprising 30th and 79th regiments) of the two giant squares that Halket's brigade had been forming earlier. Halkett's battalions are at the time of the Guard attack apparently going into a line formation from square but like a lot of things no one is real sure when and if. One of the main issues is was Halkett driven back, which Halkett says no except this one time he had to pull back the 69th regimenet IIRC, but then Halkett was wounded around 630 pm and probably did not witness the firefight/highwater mark of the Guard.
So I dont doubt Detmers was there facing the MIddle Guard that lead off the attack. but I question the 6 column wide formation doesnt seem to fit. It is reported that CHasse had the brigade march to their place in front with 3 columns across. Then later when he realized the danger he went back for the other 3 brigades also in column. These accounts then claim he went in 6 brigade columns across. I think it more likely that there were two waves of 3 columns each. And these columns would have maneuvered around clumps of stragglers as they move forward possibly through remants of Halkett's brigade and the Brunswick division.
Mine is when during napoleons expedition in Egypt he brought along a team of scientists and Egyptologists and one thing they discovered was the “Rosetta Stone” a stone slab that had roman, ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian writing chiseled onto the stone and soon scientists were able to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs by using the Roman and Greek writings on the stone and for the first time in modern history scientists were able to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and it greatly expanded the field of Egyptology and our understanding of ancient Egypt.