A Conversation for The Battle of Waterloo, 1815

A disgusting and slanderous article vis a vis the contribution of the Dutch

Post 1


I didnt think that history this bad actually existed anymore, let alone that it could be published on a BBC website.

I have never read any viable source that suggests that the Netherlands Mobile Army's only contribution the Battle of Waterloo "was to retreat and spread panic in Brussels". The article totally ignores the vital action at Quatre Bras fought mostly by Netherlands troops, which prevented Napoleon from capturing Brussels without there even being a Battle of Waterloo. It ignores the fact that several of the British heavy cavalry units at Waterloo were almost destroyed, and that without the backup of Major General Trip van Zoudtlandts brigade, Wellington would have been left without any heavy cavalry. It ignores the fact, widely attested, that Major General David Hendrik Chasse's troops were the ones that actually saw off the Imperial Guard at the close of the battle, a Netherlands unit.

I will not begin on the other factual innacuracies here presented, unrelated to the contributions of the Netherlands Mobile Army. I think that the writer of this article has read one too many outdated histories, and perhaps a few novels, and seems to have based their entire account on bad sources and works of fiction. This article is slanderous and personally, I feel it should be deleted as soon as possible, before it misleads more potential readers.

Sources - start with Osprey's "Wellington's Dutch Allies" or "Wellington's Belgian Allies", Albert A. Nofi's "Waterloo Campaign" is a short introduction. Anything more recent than Siborne's 1844 history is better than this article - I suspect that this writer got most of his "facts" from Siborne. One of Siborne's major detractors was in fact the Duke of Wellington himself.

A disgusting and slanderous article vis a vis the contribution of the Dutch

Post 2

The H2G2 Editors


First of all, a warm welcome to H2G2! And thank you very much indeed for your comments. H2G2 articles (or 'Entries') are written by members of the public and we always very much welcome feedback, comment and additional info. Indeed, your comments hanging off this Entry are very much part of the Entry itself and the reading experience of it. We are very sorry indeed that you are so upset by what you have read. However, we can update this Entry where it is proved to be factually wrong and if you would like, you can submit some potentially additional text for the Entry here at Editorial Feedback: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A388334

Many thanks again for you comments and observations.

H2G2 Editors

Key: Complain about this post

A disgusting and slanderous article vis a vis the contribution of the Dutch

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more