The Dutch Army at Waterloo

Addressing some lies, mainly propagated by the British, about the Dutch Army at Waterloo.

[@FaustsKanaal]

Sources for this video. An analysis with maps and figures for the Dutch: www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_Cowards.html And a general overview of The Netherlands in the Napoleonic era. madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-netherlands-in-napoleonic-wars.html

[@FaustsKanaal]

Images in the video are, in order: Dutch Lancers charging, dispositions at quartre bras and waterloo, portrait of Prince William, painting of the Dutch charge at Quartre Bras led by Prince William, portrait of General Hendrik Chassé, formerly the leader of the Dutch brigade under the French in Spain.

[@FaustsKanaal]

Note that for us Dutch, neither French nor Brits treated us well. Had the Coalition not won, we would have been annexed by France. However, The British took most of our colonies, including South Africa. And the misfortune of the Boers has started since then. Anglo rule led to the Great Trek, the zulu wars and the introduction of liberalism, the Boer Wars and now the genocide on Afrikaners.

[@robvoncken2565]

well to be honest they had little reason to do so...remember we had been at war with both several times over the last150 years, Also we switched sides twice in this war. but you are right the history is very inaccurate about the non Britisch involvement in the battle. Its called WIG history and its a common trait with societies that end up on top. BUT one should not deminish them either. They were brave men all of them

[@mrmc2465]

in south africa the British descended south africans are facing genocide too, it is not so simple as you write

[@Gudha_Ismintis]

Hi faust - was it not the VoC (Dutch East India Company) who outlawed outward expansion from the Cape and ended European Immigration (and increased the number of slaves instead?) - before the British took control?

[@prinsreintje]

@@mrmc2465 it is simple, they are both white..

[@etiennesharp]

I think it's worth noting that those of us UK based with a background in history respect utterly the Netherlands contribution, particularly your solid artillery and infantry which held the line magnificently.

[@ludovic2431]

Indeed a lot of negative reference in the English language about the Dutch. Not for nothing I can tell you. Jealousy? Possible who says but let's be honest. The most severe defeat of the British Navy was the Dutch Raid on the Medway. Then they needed the Dutch to free themsemves from a Catholic King (Glorious Revolution). Stadholder William of Orange became King William III just because he needed "a bigger bike" to defeat King Louis and not that he had a very warm feeling for the British. He founded the Bank of England, the financial institute that made the rise of the British Empire possible. He changed the possition of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Of all English Kings he has been one of the most important for the Brits but the Brits do not want to know that which is comparable to the story of Waterloo. Than finally the Boer war where the Brits needed more then 300000 troops to defeat not even 85000 Boers. They needed concentrationcamps to finally attain their goal. The Boers invented guerilla warfare and Winston Churchill named the special troops after the Boer Commandos. The English were well prepared for the first World War because of their Boerwar experience. So not jealous??? No possibly not but certainly impressed a lot!! By the way, why do you think that the second King of the Netherlands William of Orange I (the first King was a Frenchman, Lodewijk Napoleon) constructed at the battlefield a huge hill with a lion on top? Indeed, because he knew that Wellington would not like that. He seriously disliked the man. Dutch impact in history is significant. Even the Declaration of Independance of the USA is an nearly exact copy of the "Brief van Verlaetinghe", the Dutch letter of Independance of the Spanish. Finally, freedom of religion in the States was installed by the Dutch. Last but not least the Dutch like the English much more then vice versa. Stupid act to go for a Brexit but possibly history has something to do with that.

[@robvoncken2565]

The problem the Brits "had" ( lets be clear this is in the past ) is that we spoiled their history . After the Spanish deminished the Brits saw themselves as the new Superpower in Europe , but for a hundred years the Dutch took that place. Eventually they surpassed the Dutch but even then their empire. ( as mentioned above) , existed by the grace of Dutch ingenuity. it has not been untill the second world war that the Dutch acknowledeg the Brits did anything they could not do themselves , being freeing them from Nazi occupation ( Really Really ow you big time for that one. ) But still the Dutch still view the Brits as their equals, which on a subconcious level drives them mad. We are the only country in Europe that refers to the 'English Channel" as the Channel. No way in hell will we have them stake a claim to it

[@beeldpuntXVI]

Result of Dutch and later Belgian (remember the fluke of Willem in 1830) is the shadowpower we have now. International fout de. Haag, navo en eu in Brussel., Yes I hate the British with their intervening of who would become king, after the fluke we wanted the troonopvolger from Nederland, a wel respected man in Brussel, but the English gave us the van saxen Coburg an uncle that that needed to go from queen Victoria

[@Timrath]

The English have always been experts at portraying themselves as heroes and their rivals as losers. They lost the Hundred Years War, so they won't stop making movies and documentaries about Agincourt - one of the few battles that they happen to have won during that war. They ran away from the Germans while the French army sacrificed itself defending Dunkerque. And to show their "gratitude", they call the French cowards to this day. They present their monumental blunder at Gallipoli as an epic of heroism. They wasted their light cavalry at Balaclava, and twist it as a testament of the bravery and professionalism of British cavalry. So why wouldn't they claim the Battle of la Belle Alliance, which was won by Dutch, German and Prussian troops, as a British victory and change its name to Battle of Waterloo? It's only natural to their character.

[@Leon-bc8hm]

The Dutch saved Wellington and this is now very known fact. No wonder the monument is for the prince of orange.

[@jeroencrabbe]

The "Dutch" were off course Dutch and Belgian in the current sense. And not all of them fought the French, a lot of them stayed "loyal" to Napoleon. One lieutenant colonel Coenraad Duuring even covered Napoleons retreat from Waterloo.

[@karinpierson694]

My Great Grandfather x 4 played an important role in this battle - Jannes van Wijk

[@hollandmeester347]

The North and South Netherlands troops were NOT the 3th biggest allied force at Waterloo, but actually the 2nd biggest allied force. And after the French and Prussians the 3th force at Waterloo. The battle took place in their country, while the British were busy in the 1812 war against America. There were between 30,000-40,000 Dutch/Nassau troops against 25,000 English/Scottish/KGL troops. But ofcourse the British lie about this fact too. The British cavalery commander Uxbridge gave order to attacked the French cavalery ............... but failed. Dutch cavalery under Van Merlen attacked the French cavalery so the British could escape. And then the British lied about the Dutch and Van Merlen. But there would be NO discussion, if the Dutch had produced a movie about Waterloo..........

[@TheRealJunyao]

Very important and insightful video showing the opposite of what media portrays! Thank you very much for doing so much research to spread the truth.

[@Krahovnir]

Interessant onderwerp

[@peterlubbers5947]

Thanks for this alas all too necessary retelling of the valiant work done by the Dutch- Belgians!👌 ¨Glorie zonder Helden¨- by Dr. N. H Vels Heijn which i read as a teenager was on of the first proper (Dutch) attempts to clean up the stain smeared on the Dutch- Belgians initiated by Siborne.. For the truly interested British i can highly recommend ¨Wellington´s hidden Heroes¨ a very well written scholarly work by Veronica Baker Smith which gives credit where credit is due to the Dutch- Belgians whilst still honouring the efforts of the Anglo- Prussian/ German troops! For those of you who are fluent in the dutch language and interested in the ¨Dutch brigade¨ fighting for the most part as a flying column under General Chasse against the "Guerrilleros" in the peninsular war (talking about a though job) there is the book ¨Duizend miljoen maal vervloekt land¨ written by Scholars H.Ph. Vogel and JA de Moor it is a must read! The Dutch had some fine units under Bonaparte. To name a few the 2nd Light Cavalry Lancers Regiment of the Imperial Guard and let's not forget who (at the very high risk of getting killed in the process) built the bridge over the ice cold Berezina river for the sake of the Grande Armee having a last chance of retreating. The 400 man strong unit had only 40 left after the work ws done. So i think it is fair to claim that No the real issue here in 1815 lies in the fact that the Dutch troops were former troops of Bonaparte and that made the Brits shall we say, a bit wary?🤔😉..

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Very solid video; an interesting recounting of the battle and certainly more accurate than what is often portrayed. That said, I think your meta-analysis afterwards might be off by just a little bit. No doubt there has been historical rivalry between the British and the Dutch, but to put it bluntly, the endurance and magnitude of the British Empire has pretty much put to rest any "jealousy" or potential jealousy about their competing histories. It's true that the Dutch were one of the first European global maritime powers (at least in the early modern period) and did quite well for themselves in the East Indies, but the British pretty decisively took North America, they took India, and they took Continental Asia ( the part that was open to Europeans), and of course they got a slight jump on the Industrial Revolution on everyone else, which led them to being the first global hegemon (matched by only one other power afterwards). I mean no insult to Hollanders, but saying the Brits are jealous of the Dutch is kind of like saying that the Americans have some latent jealousy towards the Canadians, because they may have lost a couple battles to at the end of the Resolution or in the War of 1812. I don't think there are any Brits born for well over a hundred and fifty years who bear any bitterness or jealousy toward the Dutch. What you're witnessing here is really just a basic cycle of propaganda. No doubt at the time in the very early early 18th century the British were keen to promote themselves and downplay Dutch accomplishments at the time, since _then_ the rivalry was still fairly fresh, and neither French or German historians will be particularly interested in challenging this, since as you mentioned, sincde.the fact that they were all pretty set to take a bite out of the Netherlands as well), so it kind of just stuck around. And considering that the British speak, well, English, I'm being pretty much the cultural grandfather's of the anglosphere, it's pretty clear why this view became embedded in American, Canadian, Australian, whatever Consciousness. And then you pretty much just have people uncritically consuming this for the next two centuries. And considering that to a small extent British media, and obviously to a larger extent American media is influential around the world, this view continues to reverberate. Not so much because it is any kind of knowing attack on the Dutch - in fact I think most Americans or British today are actually quite favorably disposed towards them - but just because people have become very comfortable consuming history exactly as it is fed to them. (Hell, if we can so readily abide falsity and misinformation about the second world war, only two generations ago, it's not hard to see how even well-intentioned people might continue to misunderstand a singular event _two centuries ago,_ just out of habit). In short, you guys aren't being victimized so much by the British, as you are the inevitable march of history. [And before you ask, no I am not a Subject of the Queen]

[@FaustsKanaal]

That all makes sense of course, in fact the sources I used argued a similar position. That its simply uncritical British and Anglosaxon historians repeating the lie. More recent research countermands the "waterloo cowards" narrative. I should have included that commentary perhaps. Now, that the Brits might not be doing it out of a grudge doesnt mean I dont. The Sharpe series for instance is from the 90s and quite spiteful at the Dutch. I watched that as a kid and I *do* hold a grudge.

[@hollandmeester347]

Great video. Only 20% of all allied troops were actually British, but you see NO North and South Netherlands troops in the fictional 1970 movie Waterloo. The British blamed the Dutch/Belgians at Waterloo. And the British blamed the Poles at Arnhem in 1944. Same story. And the reason for this is the Dutch do not produce a Waterloo movie, so the British like Sharpe can lie about the Dutch all they like because the Dutch do not protest and they do not prove otherwise.....

[@hollandmeester347]

These numbers are English numbers. There where not 25,000 English. These numbers are included KGL and troops from Hanover......

[@jamescritchley5961]

It’s a bit like how Americans save the world in every ww2 movie ever made in Hollywood. Should serve as a reminder as to the political and social motivations for the creation of film; 95% of the time.

[@thekameleon9785]

Why did wellington lie?

[@lesdodoclips3915]

He didn’t

[@Raadpensionaris]

To take all the praise

[@Leon-bc8hm]

Because he failed without the Dutch.

[@Leon-bc8hm]

@@lesdodoclips3915 Yes he did. Wellington failed to recognize the threat. While the Dutch saw it. Glad this is now a known fact online.

[@dutch1641]

Heh this was probably the first redpill I took. Anglos lie a lot through out history

[@mrmc2465]

give me a break the winner always writes the history books(be they lies or not) and there are far more blantant lies from other victorious powers

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

It’s not really lying: more creating a national myth. Most people exaggerate their own part in any event. The Dutch and Belgians were just too modest - and also perhaps a little ashamed that they had fought alongside Napoleon for several years. Whereas the Brits, and especially their bankers, had “saved” Europe by interceding in a war which wasn’t really even theirs to fight.

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 of course it was their fight. If Britain did not, France would become far to powerfull

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@Raadpensionaris - I suppose you are right. Until then Britain had concentrated on naval warfare, and preferred to subsidise the nations of Europe to fight the land war against Napoleon. Aside from the Peninsula, previous British attempts to intervene on the continent had been dismal failures (for example the Walcheren expedition).

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 Yeah, and even before this the Brits and Dutch had(from 1688 to 1795) worked mostly together to contain France and preserve the Balance of Power on the continent

[@curtis851224]

Honestly, your presentation about the Dutch contribution during the Waterloo-campaign is... embarrassing... Ever read a book on the subject, or do you just use it as a (very vague) means to rant about the mistreatment of the Dutch by the British?

[@FaustsKanaal]

Sources are in the comments. Now go away, Anglo defense force.

[@curtis851224]

@@FaustsKanaal Belgo-Dutch defense force, thank you very much. You've failed to name about any action of the Netherlands army during the 100 days-campaign, but let me elaborate with a few examples: 1. The decision of His Majesty, the Prince of Orange and General de Constant Rebecque to move his forces in the direction of Charleroi to slow the advance of Bonaparte's army. 2. The gallant actions of van Merlen's light cavalry at Quatre Bras, including an engagement with the French that is considered one of the longest cavalry-engagements of the entire war. 3. Bylandt's 1st brigade which was able to withstand the force of the Duc d'Erlon's first Corps at Waterloo for a reasonable amount of time, even though they had suffered a considerable amount of casualties (especially the 5th militia and 27th jagers). One of the reasons they were named "cowards" by the British, was because the British officers just weren't aware of the high casualty-rate the Dutch and Belgians had already suffered. 4. The British Household Cavalry was saved by Trip-Van Zoutlandt's heavy cavalry, counter-charging the French cuirassiers and carabiniers while the British were on the run. Afterwards they were positioned behind the allied squares to act as an extra defensive line. "The Dutch cavalry was spent"? I have no idea where you've read that, but I'm calling BS. The three Dutch and Belgian carabinier-regiments were succesfully engaging French troops throughout the rest of the day. 5. General Chassé's order to the 3rd Netherlands division to fix bayonets and charge the advancing of the Garde Impériale. It's a bit of a myth, but it is said that this charge was one of the reasons the garde broke. 6. You call them "farm houses", I call them Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte. There were Nassau-troops defending Hougoumont the entire day. It was never taken by the French. As far as I know, Nassau was part of the Netherlands back then. The latter one was taken (due to a lack of Netherlands troops probably). I can go on and on and on... Instead of going on a rant of the "injustice" done the Dutch (and Belgians) by a Anglo-minded Siborne-schooled ignorant mass up intil the 90's, you could've emancipated your youtube-audience and talked about the often heroïc acts of the Netherlands troops in 1815. You can cry about it, or you can do something about it. Missed opportunity, too bad. Now go and read some books. Post scriptum: I've got a profile-pic of the Prince of Orange. Calling me a defender of the English is rubbish.

[@FaustsKanaal]

You are correct, I did not get into tactical specifics about the actions of the Dutch at either Waterloo or Quartre Bras because the point here is not to do military history on the tactical level but to counter Anglo lies and show the Perfidy of eternal Albion. There is also no such thing as "belgo-dutch" as there are no Belgians. Merely confused Dutchmen.

[@admiraliteidsweg]

@@curtis851224 thnx for the info that made more sense then the whole clip 👍

[@keesjanhoeksema9575]

curtis851224 Interesting comments, do You have any upload on YT on this subject? Would be interesting to see A version on Waterloo that isn’t formed in hind-sight by the self proclaimed British ‘victor’ (Or propaganda from any other nation!)