Waterloo - Hougoumont and ‘support platoons.’
Good morning everyone… I have quick question…, unfortunately, it needs a long-winded explanation.
I’m working on a chapter that needs some expert points of view, however, I must mention that my manuscript calls a spade a spade, while distancing the text from some incomprehensible Napoleonic terms and titles. Lol…, I can now hear the nails of historians as they scratch down the blackboard. (‘Jaws’) This book is being written by a former Guardsman for Guardsmen, and I don’t want them falling asleep.
Because of it, I do not use the term ‘half company,’ I use the word platoon. A ‘half company’ does not explain where they are or what they were doing…, whereas an assault platoon puts them up front and soon to be active, (like Lt. Cols. Dashwood and Wyndham) while their support platoons are in reserve to the rear, biding their time. (like Ensigns Standen and Gooch)
Anyway, INDEPENDENT of the terminology, my problem is the following. During the howitzer’s second volley from the great orchard while firing at the gardener’s house…, it only stands to reason that the French in the wood would have been keeping their heads down while regrouping, evacuating their wounded and prisoners, and replenishing ammunition.
Suddenly, having devastated the upper level of the formal garden and parts of the buildings, the gun stops firing. Automatically, this creates a situation where the Guards and Allies would find themselves regrouping while evacuating their wounded. (including Capt. Craufurd) And this tells us that the allied firepower from the buildings and the walls would have been seriously reduced. As a result, this allows the French to attack the Southgate. (Clay describes the gate as providing “stumps for firewood”)
Now here’s my problem…, and I know I will be criticized for relating Napoleonic tactics to those of a modern-day soldier…, nonetheless, the French in the wood were elite soldiers and were certainly not stupid. Meaning that this attack did not resemble a Zulu confrontation. (as depicted in many paintings with hand-to-hand fighting using the house as a backdrop – there were no Guards outside) Not one commanding officer of a French support platoon would have ordered his men to cross the Killing Ground, before their assault platoon would have gained entry to the Southgate passageway. Had they done so, they would have come to a halt near the crossroads, and while ‘waiting,’ they’d have been eliminated by the sharpshooters manning the loopholes in the SW corner stables.
On to my question… Would the French have attacked like the Zulus, or would they have waited until they could see daylight streaming through the passageway from the southern courtyard ?
Thanks…, Iain.
H-K, agreed. It clearly made sense to have different commanders in each of the buildings, formal garden and orchard.
I have been trying to develop a chronological events list based on the many eyewitness accounts which are available. Unsurprisingly, few give timings, and those that do inevitably contradict those from others. Therefore, the events list is extremely difficult to be sure of and many eyewitness accounts of hedges, woods and orchards are clearly mixed up. French accounts are very short of detail and clarity.
Whilst many modern histories mention the Nassau contribution to the fighting at Hougoumont, there seems to be a feeling that they all ran away and disappear from the description of the fighting after the initial engagements. Whilst it does seem that the two companies that started the battle in the wood eventually made their way back onto the ridge, the four companies that fought in the buildings (Grenadier Company) and the gardens (two companies) and the orchard (one company) all seem to disappear from the later descriptions of the fighting. I believe that once the two battalions of the 2nd (Guards) Brigade had deployed down off the ridge, the Nassauers were concentrated in the garden and held much of the southern wall, while the 2nd (Coldstream) Guards concentrated on the eastern wall, covering the orchard, and the eastern end of the southern wall.
The point you make about propaganda is an important one and we must remember the political situation in Europe in the later nineteenth century, and into the twentieth, when many of these accounts were written. Like much of the battlefield, it suited the British to concentrate what their own troops did to the detriment of their allies.