Skip to comments.Ministers refuse to mark Waterloo: Campaigners say Government do not want to offend France
Posted on 06/13/2013 7:42:48 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
Tt is often regarded as the British Armys greatest military victory.
Led into battle by the Duke of Wellington, UK troops routed Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, a triumph ushering in almost a century of peace and stability in Europe.
But the Government is refusing to mark the battles 200th anniversary in 2015 amid suspicions it does not want to offend France.
Brussels is spending at least £20million on commemorative events, including restoring the battlefield.
James Morrow, secretary of Waterloo 200, ...said he was disappointed.
The Belgian government has spent millions on events to commemorate the battle but we have been given zilch, zippo, nothing. I think its very disappointing.
The Battle of Waterloo was a milestone in European history which ended over 20 years of conflict in Europe.
We cant let the 200th anniversary pass without marking it and learning lessons about why it was so important.
David Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, said: ...It appears to be ludicrous hyper-sensitivity.
Waterloo was a battle of the most immense importance. Britain was fighting a tyrant who had conquered Europe. It was a momentous moment that should be commemorated. We should be shouting it from the rooftops.
In a message to Waterloo 200, the 8th Duke of Wellington said: I am often asked whether we should not now, in these days of European unity, forget Waterloo and the battles of the past.
My reply is, history cannot be forgotten and we need to be reminded of the bravery of the thousands of men from many nations who fought and died in a few hours and why their gallantry and sacrifice ensured peace in Europe for 50 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Canada doesn’t have anything to be offended about - they kicked our butts when we invaded!
Consistently lost, yes. Except for a series of brilliant victories by a certain dwarfish Corsican genius. And even he managed to end up losing the wars after winning most of the battles. But Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt really stick in their craw.
How ironic (I am being polite) that you talk about ‘England’ being saved by the Prussians, when the two most famous turning points of the battle for the British were from SCOTS: the heroic stand of the Scots Guards at Hougemont and the legendary charge of the Royal Scots Grays (when they stole the French ensign). Oh and Wellington was born in Ireland.
England and Britain/Great Britain/UK are NOT the same thing.
Turned the battle, yes, saved no.
There are many instances that day of British victory, it may have ‘been a close run thing’, but the British were hardly ‘saved’. Or needing to be.
Plus they made us take Detroit back. (Well, the Brits did anyway.)
Hey, Detroit was great for a while. Never would have won WWII without Detroit.
Well, that's a consideration. On the other hand, the Cubs might have won the 1945 World Series.
(They lost to Detroit 4 games to 3.)
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks Tennessee Nana.Brussels is spending at least £20million on commemorative events, including restoring the battlefield... James Morrow, secretary of Waterloo 200, ...said he was 'disappointed... The Belgian government has spent millions on events to commemorate the battle but we have been given zilch, zippo, nothing. I think it's very disappointing. The Battle of Waterloo was a milestone in European history which ended over 20 years of conflict in Europe. We can't let the 200th anniversary pass without marking it and learning lessons about why it was so important.'Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.
You are correct. My apologies.
I perhaps could have said “Great Britain”....
My recollection was that the English parliament had representatives from Scotland and Ireland at that time, but representation was far from uniform, with ‘rotten boroughs’ in the House of Commons and of course the mostly non-representative House of Lords.
That ok, apologies from me if I was a bit curt and rude.
Scotland has its own parliament now.
We all have some quirks. The charge of the Scots Greys was indeed wonderful.
My understanding is that Wellington returned to the battlefield in later years and was offended that it wasn’t the same. The sunken road that acted like a moat against the French cavalry had been filled in, using dirt from the edge of the hill that protected his men from the French Artillery.
If they restore the battlefield to its previous condition, it would be a service to History, and somewhere, Wellington would softly smile.
If they do it wrong Wellington would be upset that they put their foot in it.
That would be too bad for Wellington — Napoleon was used up in his Russian campaign (dropped nearly 500,000 on that campaign, absolutely mind-boggling), and his former cowed allies turned on him. If that hadn’t happened, Wellington wouldn’t have been able to join battle.
This was more a part of the wider battle for the Angevin dynasty -- this dynasty came close to ruling much of Europe in the 1300s -- one even became king of Hungary and Poland.
Seems to me it was "a damned near-run thing" that turned into a rout.
Except Waterloo occurred after Nappy had already been exiled, and returned. The losses in Russia were years ago, and there were many cohorts (each annual class of men is considered a cohort) since that happened that were able to replenish the French Army. About half the Grande Armee were not French. Spanish and Portuguese soldiers were particularly prone to desertion.
Wellington had already fought the French in Spain.
I would respectfully argue though that while the British nobles at the battle certainly possessed French ancestry and some residual identification with the culture (and were keen on getting their ancestral lands back) the common foot soldiers and archers were as English as the Thames. Their unfortunate opponents did not believe they were fighting fellow Frenchmen and it is celebrated in England as a miraculous English victory. Shakespeare (and Olivier in 1944) certainly played some part in making that so.
PS: I enjoy reading your posts. European history was not my focus in college. Middle East was.
The Russian campaign was in 1812 and 1813; he was barely able to extricate himself in the east, and returned to France outnumbered 3:1. He was forced out of power in 1814 (one year, not years later), and returned from his first exile in 1815. In the space of three months the allies brought their armies back into theater, Napoleon threw together one last army, and went on the attack against a numerically superior enemy that was already dug in. He wasn’t able to dislodge them before the Prussian army arrived on his flank.
Which is why he should have been executed to begin with.
ditto all such tyrants that follow
I distrust Shakespeare's version of the events -- it's good literature but bad history. He wrote at a time when the concept of a nation was full-blown while during the Plantagenet wars the concept of the nation was not so distinct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.