Waterloo: Causes, Courses and Consequences - Professor Sir Richard Evans FBA

On the 200th anniversary of the battle, Professor Sir Richard Evans discusses the Battle of Waterloo, and places it in its historical context with proper credit given to the Prussian General Blucher: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
The Battle of Waterloo was fought on 18th June 1815. The 200th anniversary has prompted widespread commemoration. But what was the battle about? Who fought it? Why did it take place in 1815 and at Waterloo? Finally, what were its consequences?
The answers to these questions are by no means as simple or straightforward as they seem, and will be explored in this illustrated lecture.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/

[@daniellastuart3145]

Wellington was not just a defensive general 3 if his most famous battle he was aggressive attacking general Assay Salamanca Victoria

[@gustavderkits8433]

Evans is a master, not merely of historical research, but of organization and exposition.

[@DoriasLives]

I was under the impression that General Peregrine Maitland led two battalions of the 1st Foot Guards and was responsible for repelling the attack on the allied centre by the French Imperial Guard? This caused the French Guard to retreat and Wellington to order a general advance of the allied army.

[@mikesummers-smith4091]

"Wellington was essentially a defensive commander." Salamanca? Vitoria?

[@ryan7864]

Eh...he was in totality a defensive commander...that was is strength...but sometimes he was offensive

[@tygetygetyge]

Sure, the campaign was an offensive one, but the battles themselves were much less offensive. And of course in Waterloo he was very cautiously defensive.

[@chrismac2234]

Or any action in India. Battle of assaye

[@chrisgibson5267]

Could this be due to his ability to utilise the troops available in the most appropriate manner? If you have an army that consists of disparate elements with various degrees of training and loyalties; then a defensive battle is perhaps less of a risk. We can judge his qualities by looking at the result of the battles he fought. In the case of Waterloo; then the result vindicates his selection of the field, the initial deployment of his forces, and his actions during the battle.

[@matthewgabbard6415]

Napoleon made most opponents defensive Generals

[@d.s.archer5903]

Best part of the lecture is the animated map starting at 41:29

[@WildBillCox13]

Well done and a pleasure to audit. Thanks for posting!

[@FiveLiver]

41:30 Great little graphic here

[@TheGerudan]

"In fact the battle is known in Germany as the Battle of Belle Alliance" Not it isn't. Maybe that might have been the case in the 19th century, but in todays Germany no one but some historians and enthusiasts for the Napoleonic era would know what battle is meant by that, while a lot more people would immediately know, what the Battle of Waterloo was.

[@markpassehl6341]

maybe because Germany hasnt been a country since 1945 and Germans have been re-educated to think Anglo-Americana drivel

[@karlkarlos3545]

@@markpassehl6341 So since Germany hasnt been a country since 1945, I guess we must have all imagined Germany becoming football world champion four times since 1945. Please don't break your skull answering me. This is a rhetoric remark.

[@worfoz]

@@markpassehl6341 No because of ABBA

[@gavinwallace5703]

Doch, Belle Alliance für alle die Geschichte gelernt haben und nicht grottige Geschichtslehrer hatten die Waterloo sagen und behaupten alle Kreuzüge wären nach Jerusalem gegangen.

[@adammurray2878]

An excellent summary of events. Worth watching.

[@jwt242]

Very interesting and informative perspective on this famous battle..

[@Marilinaa]

Excellent lecture

[@terrystephens1102]

An excellent presentation 😃👌👏👏👏

[@maureenj.odonnell4438]

Another brilliant lecture from, Gresham.

[@ellethekitten]

good lecture. Thanks for the upload

[@tonycox8587]

Michelle I agree. Nicely done, although there appeared to be a whiff of contemporary politics at the end....

[@ReoAard]

Thanks

[@nate9253]

Most interesting . Thanks

[@zsoltbakos2358]

good lecture

[@jeanmarchand2207]

I would like to see Wellington against Napoleon at 1 against 1 at the Battle of Waterloo. British takes all the credit ...

[@simbee3634]

Without the Prussians, Wellington cannot win Waterloo, with the Prussians, Napoleon cannot win Waterloo. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was the result of campaign defeat, mainly due to Grouchy going the wrong way and not keeping the Prussians away from Wellington's army.

[@johnwayneeverett6263]

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS GUY >>>>>>THANK YOU ........

[@ashleyhyatt6319]

Fade to black with nine minutes left. Delightful speech, subpar editing.

[@thecarpetman7687]

Why does the ABBA song keep going through my head!

[@VideoHostSite]

BECAUSE IT IS AWESOME!

[@williamarthurfenton1496]

The term 'British forces' has for a very long time been known to anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge to mean 'Led by' and not literally meaning all British soldiers from Britain. We still say "British forces" in respect to WW1 and WW2 even though in fact we mean "Britain and her Commonwealth." A country with a tiny standing army is never going to be able to fight on its own-- and having Canadians and Indians and all the others is just a given.

[@Mrch33ky]

Watch out for the coughs into the microphone.

[@jesuisravi]

thanks for the clairification

[@robertmclean3951]

A bit tedious I thought. Not a lot new or particularly interesting. Rather dull delivery. At the same time I did not find anything wrong with the actual lecture but I would have had trouble staying awake had I been in the audience.

[@elrjames7799]

It's good that Richard acknowledges the notion that Napoleon had a dream to establish a European dictatorship is "wrong".

[@ihl0700677525]

Yea, all he wanted was his entire family in charge, not himself as the sole dictator. Lol.

[@stevenaustin9017]

sounds like a fan of napoloan wellington was not a defensive general he oftan hsd a smaller army than the marshales he was facing but defeted them brillantly with offensive moves like salamanca he beAT ALL OF NAPOALOANS MARSHALES NEVER LOST A BATTLE WON WATERLOO WITH A COALITION ARMY AGAINST AN ARMY OF FRENCH VETERERANS A MUCH BETTER GENERAL THAN NAPOLOAN

[@cazeaton29]

What a pot boiled lecture, yes agreed most of Wellingtons army were not British but he conveniently says nothing about the nationality troops defending Hougomont Farm (mainly British Foot Guards with some Nassau ) and which Dutch troops repelled the advance of the Imperial Guard ? Were these the men of the First Foot Guards or the Men of the 52nd Rgt (The Oxfordshire Regiment ) It is known that the Battle was fought on the premise of mutual support between the Allied and Prussian Army and to get it down to basics what Wellington had to do was stand and weaken the French until the Prussians arrived and put in a flanking attack on the French Army. The mistakes were Napoleon's, chiefly not pursuing the Prussians after the Battle of Ligny, Denying Ney his reinforcements at Quatre Bras,(effectively a whole French Corps marched between but took no part in either battle all day.) The day of the battle Napoleons decision not to move the guns up WAS the correct thing to do though in retrospect can be seen as wrong , also getting focused on Hougomont ,allowing his sub ordinates to much latitude D'Erlon not to going in on the flank and NOT the centre, allowing Ney to carry out a series of unsupported cavalry attacks that certainly could not have broken infantry squares. Finally not throwing in the Guard early enough when requested by Ney this gave the Allied army time to reorganise. Napoleonic change can be seen retrospectively as a good thing but understand you need order at home if you're going to fight the rest of Europe ,I doubt for instance that the people of Spain part of Napoleon's empire building would agree that they had been liberated by his enlightenment!! Really if you're going to make the ideas of the revolution your modus opperandi don't make yourself a King and your brothers and sisters kings and queens, of course a good Corsican keeps the business in the family.... Having said all this I enjoyed this lecture.

[@Radbod79]

"What a pot boiled lecture, yes agreed most of Wellingtons army were not British but he conveniently says nothing about the nationality troops defending Hougomont Farm (mainly British Foot Guards with some Nassau ) and which Dutch troops repelled the advance of the Imperial Guard ? Were these the men of the First Foot Guards or the Men of the 52nd Rgt (The Oxfordshire Regiment )" It was colonel Detmers' brigade with the 35th Jagers, the 2nd Line, and the 4th Militia, Dutch troops. Know your history and get beyond your arrogant British historical inaccuracy.

[@ragimundvonwallat8961]

very well said mister Freez!

[@aleidbakker4172]

The question was: which Dutch troops repelled the advance of the Imperial Guard? The last attempt of Napoleon to break Wellingtons’ defense was carried out by 5 battalions of the Old Guard (the rest of the (Jeune Garde) Guard was fighting at Plancenoit, 3 battalions were kept in reserve). The attack was supported by the remains of the battered corps of d’Erlon and Reille, but there was no longer any close support of artillery, since the French battery placed near La Haye Sainte had been silenced by freshly brought in allied batteries (a Dutch battery to be more precise, commanded by Captain Carel Frederik Krahmer de Bichin) Wellington had strengthened the threatened area by pulling in troops from his flanks, which he could do due to the arrival of Ziethen’s 1th Prussian Army Corps coming from the east (Smohain). Among these reinforcements were six regiments of cavalry (Vivian and Vandeleur) and the 3th Dutch Division lead by David, Hendrik Chassé, (which had served in the French Army under Napoleon as had many of his 2000 men only 2 years before) The left flank of the French attack column (1th and 2th battalions of the 3rd Chasseurs and 4th Chasseurs, was repelled by the British brigades under Maitland, Byng and Adam, the right flank of the French lead by Marshal Ney (1st battalion of the 3th Grenadiers and 4th Grenadiers) broke the line formed by a British brigade (Colin Halkett) and two battalions from Brunswick, they were then stopped and routed by the sudden arrival of the 1e brigade (Detmers) of the 3th Dutch Division. Detmers men stormed down the slope in pursuit of the French until they run into the arriving Prussians near Rossome. This was several minutes before Wellington gave the order to sweep the remaining French from the slopes of Mount St Jean. The fighting was described by eye accounts of Detmers soldiers as chaotic and wild, half the men had lost their shoes in the mud, the Prussians after drinking snaps with the Dutch stormed further in the direction of Le Caillou, while killing every French soldier they captured and singing “Herr Gott, Dich loben Wir” Aleid Bakker

[@sumguy2725]

@@aleidbakker4172 the old guard didnt advance against the british . They were held up in fighting at plancnoit , as reserves or just stayed at la haye saint as a reserve for the advancing middle guard

[@sumguy2725]

Napoleon didnt even know that ney was about to carry out the cav charge as napoleon had to rest from the battlefield because he was very sick ( i think he was suffering from some sort of cancer ) and left command of his army to ney

[@StephenSmith-dx9tr]

Wonderful lecture

[@S2Cents]

Interesting cough history, very informa.. cough tive cough. It is.

[@reallyoldfatgit]

What a poor example of the art of biased revisionism. Granted he didn’t descend into a constant stream of “ifs” but to say that “Wellington didn’t win the battle Blucher did” is like saying “The Soviet Union didn’t defeat Germany in 1945, the the western allies did”. We know that Blucher couldn’t defeat Napoleon during the 100 days because he lost at Ligny where he declined to exploit possible reverse slope defensive positions, thereby unnecessarily exposing his troops to the superior French artillery and suffering the consequences. Likewise, Wellington would have not have fought if Blucher had not promised to come to his aid. The clue is in the picture in House of Lords where both commanders congratulated each other on their joint victory. He undermines his credibility further by making stupid assertions such as “Wellington was a defensive commander”; his victories at Assaye, Salamanca and Vitoria show that when conditions required he attacked, he could. Wellington wasn’t an attacking or defensive commander, he was just a very good commander.

[@raka522]

So far, I see Wellington withstanding the attacks of Napoleon until the arrival of the Prussians. He could not win the battle. In the course of the battle Napoleon's missing more and more troops, which he could use against Wellington, because he had to use his reserves in a defensive battle against the Prussians on his right flank. At the same time as the old guard attacked Wellington's position, French troops became aware of the attack of strong Prussian troops in their right flank, which immediately led to the complete collapse of their morale. (The Prussian cavalry was so fast in place that Napoleon had to leave his carriage at the start of his escape to even be able to flee on a horse. His hat, left behind in the carriage, can be seen in a museum in Berlin.)

[@HingerlAlois]

At the Battle of Ligny Wellington had promised Blücher that the Prussians would be reinforced by troops of Wellington’s Army. The reinforcements promised by Wellington which Blücher expected on his right flank didn’t show up in time.

[@BaronsHistoryTimes]

@@HingerlAlois Yes, specifically, Wellington had promised he could assemble his entire army to directly assist Blucher in the area within 24 hours of a French attack. On June 16th he only had half his army collected at Quatre Bras - 30 hours after the French invasion started.

[@reallyoldfatgit]

@@HingerlAlois when Wellington met Blucher before Ligney he promised to march to the Prussian’s aid “as long as I am not attacked”, he was at Quarte Bras, so he fought Ney there. How was he to get to Ligney with a French Corps in his way? If he had gone around Ney he would have had to leave his guns and ammunition behind as the only road went via Quatre Bras. He would have been in a better position to support Blucher if Genisenau had kept Wellington up to date with his superior intelligence, but that didn’t happen.

[@TheNapchop]

the Imperial Guard were repulsed by British Guards and line regiments according to all accounts I have read (by eye witnesses) and not by Dutch troops as was stated here. I don't degrade the Dutch troops, some of their infantry were formally battalions of Imperial Guard themselves.

[@Radbod79]

www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Imperial_Guard_at_Waterloo.htm#waterlooguardvs

[@aleidbakker4172]

Dutch troops certainly played a role in repelling the advance of the Imperial Guard? The last attempt of Napoleon to break Wellingtons’ defense was carried out by 5 battalions of the Old Guard (the rest of the (Jeune Garde) Guard was fighting at Plancenoit, 3 battalions were kept in reserve). The attack was supported by the remains of the battered corps of d’Erlon and Reille, but there was no longer any close support of artillery, since the French battery placed near La Haye Sainte had been silenced by freshly brought in allied batteries (a Dutch battery to be more precise, commanded by Captain Carel Frederik Krahmer de Bichin) Wellington had strengthened the threatened area by pulling in troops from his flanks, which he could do due to the arrival of Ziethen’s 1th Prussian Army Corps coming from the east (Smohain). Among these reinforcements were six regiments of cavalry (Vivian and Vandeleur) and the 3th Dutch Division lead by David, Hendrik Chassé, (which had served in the French Army under Napoleon as had many of his 2000 men only 2 years before) The left flank of the French attack column (1th and 2th battalions of the 3rd Chasseurs and 4th Chasseurs, was repelled by the British brigades under Maitland, Byng and Adam, the right flank of the French lead by Marshal Ney (1st battalion of the 3th Grenadiers and 4th Grenadiers) broke the line formed by a British brigade (Colin Halkett) and two battalions from Brunswick, they were then stopped and routed by the sudden arrival of the 1e brigade (Detmers) of the 3th Dutch Division. Detmers men stormed down the slope in pursuit of the French until they run into the arriving Prussians near Rossome. This was several minutes before Wellington gave the order to sweep the remaining French from the slopes of Mount St Jean.The fighting was described by eye accounts of Detmers soldiers as chaotic and wild, half the men had lost their shoes in the mud, the Prussians after drinking snaps with the Dutch stormed further in the direction of Le Caillou, while killing every French soldier they captured and singing “Herr Gott, Dich loben Wir”

[@roodborstkalf9664]

@@aleidbakker4172 : Good comment

[@BaronsHistoryTimes]

@@aleidbakker4172 Good account of the action; also it was 5 Battalions of the Middle Guard to be precise.... the 3rd and 4th Regiments of Grenadiers and Chasseurs were Middle Guard; 1st and 2nd regiments were Old Guard. 2 Battalions of Old Guard were also at Plancenoit with the Young Guard.

[@bdkim79]

A typical historian who wants to say "everything you knew about blah is wrong" (and therefore learn from me!) at every possible opportunity. It's called revisionism. Thank you for an hour's worth of revisionism.

[@roodborstkalf9664]

Good lecture. that said what's annoying for people from what is now called the Netherlands and Belgium is that everything concerning the Low Countries is called Dutch, which in this case is extremely incorrect. High time for English speakers to introduce some new terminology to describe armies and people from the Low Countries.

[@richardturner9317]

The Professor's argument is somewhat fatuous, perhaps he is trying to be controversial for its own sake?! Waterloo was the battle that effectively ended Napoleon's ability to wage further war. If he had defeated the Allied Army fighting under Wellington it would not have altered his inevitable defeat only have delayed it at the cost of more lives lost. The Austrian Army or even the Russian Army would have re-enforced the Allied cause to have engaged & defeated Napoleon elsewhere, the only difference being that we would not have had Waterloo Station in London or our children sniggering at a smutty joke based around the word 'toilet' !

[@matthewgabbard6415]

Didn't he explain all that in the presentation? The Hundred Days was just a chance to say goodbye to the Old Guard and Paris. If he thought he could regain his former Empire he was delusional, but I think he knew the game was up.

[@frenchfree]

The France lost Agincourt because it rained all night and turned the field to mud. Waterloo was lost because it rained all night and forced Napoleon to delay the battle allowing Blucher to arrive and save the day. Even though Wellington held the high ground and hid his troops on the hidden downslope, its interesting to see what would have happened if the French attacked at first light.

[@maximilianmin1786]

'Put together by the Austrians' - you mean the British.

[@starwonder8324]

Blessings everyone GREAT WATCH HERE FOR YOU ALL "FROM EVOLUTIONIST TO CREATIONIST" BY PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH BEAUTIFUL TRUE AMAZING STORY YOU TUBE ENJOY BEAUTIFUL WATCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿

[@andrewberger1281]

nothing true about this one - the battle was very different

[@krupadrum]

Had Napoleon not sent Grouchy and Gerard off with 32,000 men, Wellingtons army would have been well beaten.

[@lsatep]

Napoleon would have lost the next day, he was doomed. You know, people are using the term "conqueror" way too loosely. Napoleon was NOT a conqueror. A conquest is the permanent subjugation of an enemy force so that they never challenge you again. Just because you occupy the territory does not mean you have conquered the people. Napoleon never achieved this permanent conquest, just mere superficial occupation of territory. Capturing a city or occupying land does not mean the enemy is conquered if they are still able to challenge you. This is especially true since it was Napoleon himself and France who ended up getting conquered by the "conquered" enemy. A real conqueror does not get conquered by those he allegedly conquered. Alexander did not end up get conquered by the Persians. Caesar did not end up get conquered by the Gauls. Cortes did not get conquered by the Aztecs. Pizarro did not get conquered by the Incas. A basic rule of thumb for conquests is that if you are compelled to leave a territory you occupied and you never return, then it is NOT a conquest. Napoleon was compelled to leave Egypt, compelled to leave Germany, compelled to leave Italy etc. Calling Napoleon a conqueror is just more evidence of biased European historians trying to change the narrative after the fact. The true narrative is that Napoleon is a story of tragedy for Europe, not triumph.

[@hughgrection4205]

What is it about British victorys that prompts so many tiresome "if this and if that" comments. Here's one for you. If Wellington's army had consisted of 80% British instead of 50% then you could have thrown in Grouchy and his 32,000 and they would still have lost. The great commanders in history win the big ones, Napoleon lost both of his and the Duke lost none. There you have it.

[@BaronsHistoryTimes]

@@lsatep 'permanent subjugation' of enemies = conquering activity. Shooting freedom fighters wanting to expel an enemy permanent occupation force is repression used by conquerors. Long term Armed occupation is not superficial. Wellington knew that when he influenced an earlier pulled out of the Coalition army of occupation from France after Waterloo than was planned.

[@bascet1]

This man denounces David Irving who incidentally he found only 15 mistakes out of Irving's 30 books, not that bad half a mistake per book! I'm no lover of Irving's politics but his books absolutely wipe the floor with Evans's? His lectures are a lot better too as this lecture nearly had me asleep and it's only 09:30!! Boring...

[@johnmorrison9758]

David Irving is a joke...but an evil joke. You should not be comparing him with anyone with any historical knowledge.

[@BaronsHistoryTimes]

On Irving > Sounding eloquently informed does not mean truthfully informed. This lecture had many flaws to keep interested in following though.

[@vkham9944]

The Russians defeated Napoleon's Grand Army 400,000 soldiers through a combination of well-timed assaults.

[@maximilianmin1786]

No. The Russians nearly fucked up, they were very lucky, Barclay de Tolly saved the Russian field army

[@jeanmarchand2207]

Maximilian Min Winter saved Russia

[@lauranceturner5287]

awful!

[@karlosteen2432]

Why?