h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Turns a cannon into a giant shotgun…

Wellington's experienced troops from the Peninsula War had been shipped off to the War of 1812 - a minor sideshow of the Napoleonic Wars that ended in a draw (the United States stayed the United States, Canada remained Canada and the border didn't change) in 1815. The most experienced troops in Wellington's allied army were Belgians who had previously fought for the French.

Wellington's army had far fewer cannon than Napoleon's. Partly because the speed of Napoleon's advance had almost completely taken Wellington by surprise but mainly to protect the supply route/line of retreat from his position and the Channel Ports.

I went to a lecture by Bernard Cornwell about Wellington a couple of years ago at the University of Southampton, where you can see the Wellington Papers archive. He told the tale of how American researchers wanted to prove that the most successful generals ever were American and, after running the programme, were annoyed that the computer declared that the most successful general was Wellington. After re-programming the computer and changing their definitions and parameters the programme was run again. This time the computer announced that the most successful general ever was – Wellington.

Napoleon Bonaparte believed in 'equality not liberty' and promoted the slave trade, whereas the one thing that you can admire about Wellington the unpopular extremely right-wing politician for was his opposition to slavery and the acts he took to abolish it.

<BB<

To be fair to the DoW, he was in other vanguards too, even if he was usually ambivalent about them.
He did push through Catholic Emancipation, without which around 80 current Members of Parliament couldn’t have taken office.
It’s non-occurrence might have denied us Blair as PM too, and even (if Archbishop Give is to be believed) the current incumbent May. It would certainly have frustrated the political careers of Greg Clark, Damian Green and (improbably?) Keith Vaz, among others. It would have decimated the ERG: no Cash, Fox, IDS...or Rees-Mogg.

(Hold on - something’s gone wrong here. I was looking for reasons to be grateful to Wellington...)

Just dropping by to say I enjoyed this entry. The breastplate as focal point for the Waterloo information is just perfect.

And that I'm a big Sharpe fan, myself. That's the way to tell military history, IMO.

And to point out that, no, we don't have to stick to those BBC ideas about what makes a good Guide Entry. What makes a good Guide Entry is readability, accuracy, relatability, context, and general sense of fun.

DG I agree with your comment "I'm a big Sharpe fan, myself. That's the way to tell military history".
Yes excellent but the TV show actors are just far too scruffy to pass!

However, they would have been flogged 25 to 50 lashes as punishment, Wellington was a vicious disciplinarian.

They were probably subject to BBC makeup artists' discipline, Bob.

Shortage of cash for decent props maybe

'Sharpe' is one of the few dramas worth watching made by ITV (although the last two, 'Sharpe's Challenge' and 'Sharpe's Peril' were co-produced with BBC America as ITV had lost all their money at the time and subsequently slashed their drama department). Sadly when I watched, 'Sharpe' was regularly defeated by the French – it was broadcast in the summer during periods of warm weather, when atmospheric conditions meant that ITV was affected by French telly ghosting in the background making ITV unwatchable.

<BB<

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Thanks, but please correct a mistake I just noticed!
The battle was on 18th June not, as it says at the end of a mid-section paragraph, on 15th.
Pinniped

Congratulations!

Congratulations and welcome back!

Congratulations!

"The events of June 15th, 1815 would lead to its disbanding." --> "The events of 18 June, 1815 would lead to its disbanding."

Thanks - the Sub-editor will note that point, no problem

Fixed that - this entry is full from start to finish of the number 15 and 18 so easy to get the two muddled

<BB<