I what I think is probably the best Napoleonicist episode ever, Dr Luke Reynolds joins me to discuss his new book 'Who owned Waterloo', which looks at the way the battle was manipulated by the British to become part of national myth making.
Buy the book: Who Owned Waterloo? - Luke Reynolds - Oxford University Press (oup.com)
Discount code at OUP: AAFLYG6
Twitter: @zwhitehistory | @lureynol
You can support this content & get exclusive perks at: www.patreon.com/thenapoleonicist
Tips also appreciated: www.ko-fi.com/napoleonicist
Though strongly disagreeing that this is the best Napoleonicist episode ever, it is very worthwhile to listen to - again about Belle Alliance.
As I already voiced my opinion in the forum. Though most scholars of today see the battle - or better the whole campaign - as an Allied victory, where both commanders - Blücher and Wellington worked well together in a very professional way to destroy Boney's army and all his political aims, this isn't clearly Wellingtions view. It was his victory and he beat Boney and he himself alone had the right to judge about whatever views were made - or in case of Siborne a diorama critizise. Seemingly the victory blew up his overblown ego immensely.
Taking Belle Alliance would clearly destroy the myth that Wellington won the battle and putting the Prussians in more adaequate perspective but that would tarnish the sun ray beam of Wellington's glory.
By the way, some German regiments, fighting in Wellington's army (and what are the Hessians both Zack and the author mentions - Nassauer?) took on Waterloo as battle honour and kept it in the Imperial German Army to the end of WW1.
Clearly as of today Waterloo and Wellinton comes to mind - there in Germany we have sold all military traditions to policial correctness and predominantely most recent works about this battle are written in English, Belle Alliance is an unkown battle and not in use any more. German table top players, wargamers and historians wouldn't know to do with that term but would refer to Waterloo.