Waterloo or not...

fernando · 17th June 2019, 12:53 PM

Governor, history is profuse in narrating epic episodes in that a handful of dudes defended a post from the assault of a zillion foes.
We know of some that would put Leonidas far back in the queue for the Guiness

. I gather that, the difference between facts and myth often resides in the ratio of combatants allegedly registered in either side.

The ammo business ...
Grapeshot and shrapnell were both (also) used in the Peninsular war, together with canister, which curiously we call lanternetas (small lanterns). Wellington was not fond of shrapnell, which he personally checked that its effect wasn't lethal enough; plenty wounds but ... not deadly as should. He saw General Simon being hit by shrapnell in his face and head; the bullets were removed like it is done when one accidently gets hit by birth shot in the face whilst duck hunting (SIC); not actually seriously wounded. When he heard that in Badajoz they used such grenades with the 24 pounders as a solution, he ordered that cannons of equal caliber were loaded with musket balls, to obviate such system flaws and ensure that the wounds did in fact incapacitate the ones that received them.
One not so talked about apparatus that became a latter occasional addition (1823-1814) in this war was the explosive rocket, invented by Baronet Sir William Congreve.

.

kronckew · 17th June 2019, 01:06 PM

True, later high explosives worked better. Actually wounding an enemy is better strategically as it takes more manpower to care for the wounded , more food, etc, too, a dead person just needs a hole, or not even that.

Conceive's rockets were in use in the war of 1812, and included in the US's national anthem (the Rockets red glare).

Apparently they also were under development in the Peninsular war.`

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deTf57rUqE

I like the flank officer's sword....

fernando · 17th June 2019, 01:54 PM

Yes, but a wounded may recover and return to battle; thus a good enemy is a dead one.
I like the peas ... not loose, but with meat cubes and poached eggs.

kronckew · 17th June 2019, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes, but a wounded may recover and return to battle; thus a good enemy is a dead one.
I like the peas ... not loose, but with meat cubes and poached eggs.

Medicine in those days was pretty terrible. They'd probably have bled them to strengthen their humours, most died of infection, some recovered tho. Minor wounds were a bit different tho.

A general on horseback that was next to Wellington at Waterloo had his leg taken off at the knee by a roundshot, he looked at Welly and said 'My Dod, sir, I've lost my leg!' - Wellington replied 'My Sod, sir, so you have". The general recoverd, sans a legs tho.

When the movie Zulu came out, people were horrified to learn the Zulu wounded left behind were executed by the Brits. (the Zulu did likewise). This was done frequently as a kindness rather than letting them suffer thru infections they couldn't cure. And of course a bit of revenge thrown in. Hard to condemn them when conditions were so different than the lives we lead now with modern medicine. Heck, the Roman legions had better medical care and a much better chance of survival than an 18-19c and very early 20c soldier. Lister made a big difference.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 6th July 2019, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

True, later high explosives worked better. Actually wounding an enemy is better strategically as it takes more manpower to care for the wounded , more food, etc, too, a dead person just needs a hole, or not even that.

Conceive's rockets were in use in the war of 1812, and included in the US's national anthem (the Rockets red glare).

Apparently they also were under development in the Peninsular war.`

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deTf57rUqE

I like the flank officer's sword....

Waterloo hospital site to be dug up by team including UK veterans

From The Guardian - Daniel Boffey in Brussels.

Quote"A group of 25 British and Dutch military veterans are to join the first excavation of the main field hospital established by the Duke of Wellington during the Battle of Waterloo. The former soldiers, sailors and RAF personnel will work with archaeologists, led by Prof Tony Pollard of Glasgow …"Unquote.

Thus in keeping with the theme above, of battle injuries inflicted... Something the weapons designers argued with incessantly...hardly surprising ! I note that the main Field Hospital at Waterloo on the British side is being excavated with a big British team to discover among other things what the main injuries were from gunpowder weapons and blades..Thousands of British troops were treated under continuous fire and the injuries were horrific as men were operated on often in the open...gaping laceration wounds inflicted by French Cavalry Swords and massive cannon and bullet wounds were treated all under fire... Most of the dead were cremated (and there are no graves) and after their bones were used as fertilizer by local farmers..

Jim McDougall · 6th July 2019, 04:06 PM

That is a fascinating perspective on 'battle' and in this case, returning to the original theme of the thread posed toward possible 'Waterloo' provenance of a cannon ball.
The scavenging of battlefields was of course well known practice, and while the initial 'retrieval' of goods was by soldiers, but in their case mostly taking much needed supply materials including clothing or what was required. In most cases, soldiers' kit was meagre and worn or damaged, and they took the opportunity to 'upgrade' or replace their own items.
For example, at Waterloo, one badly wounded soldier was still cognizant in hours after the battle, but his wounds so debilitating he could not speak. He was partially dragged as his boots were pulled off. These were the items precious to the soldiers trying to survive.
Coats, and belts, perhaps ammunition cases etc. would replace items the soldiers had and were damaged or lost during the battle.

Items such as weaponry, and ordnance etc. were most often dragged off by civilian population drawn to the place for retrieval of such goods which could be readily sold as surplus, scrap or sometimes novelties.

Often the ghastly business of 'clean up' of decomposed and further ravaged bodies by predators, beyond the obvious carnage of the wounds that killed these men, was often not done for months and longer. Indeed, the more ghastly treatment of these remains did even include pulverizing of bones into fertilizer.....a matter of fact of the unceremonious disregard for men who fought heroically for their causes.

The case described here of excavation of a field hospital is interesting as the resulting interment of remains was likely situated away from the primary locations of battle, and the lesser volume more reasonably handled.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 8th July 2019, 11:33 AM

Incredible as it may seem!~after Waterloo there was a run on false teeth …

Waterloo Teeth – the latest fashion

They say that, on the day after the battle, you couldn’t find a pair of pliers for love nor money. Not for fifty miles around. The new fashion – in London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg and New York – was for dentures fitted with real teeth. And there, on those few square miles of Belgian soil, lay no less than 50,000 potential donors, most of them dead, the rest so close to it that it didn’t much matter. It was the Etruscans, apparently, who first invented dentures – around 700 BC. Teeth from another person or an animal, such as an ox, were inserted into a band of gold with a metal pin and fitted on to the remaining teeth. Dentures remained an option only for the wealthy as they were expensive to make. They appeared again in the 18th Century when sugar addiction had taken a dreadful toll of Europe’s teeth. Fans became popular, not to keep their owners cool, but to waft away the stench of gum disease. False teeth became popular once more. And perhaps the most famous complete set of dentures was that owned by George Washington. It’s pure myth that they were made of wood, of course. In truth, each tooth was carved from ivory, set into lead, and spring-loaded. Uncomfortable! After Waterloo, battlefield casualties became the main source of denture teeth until after the American Civil War. And, after Waterloo, a good incisor could fetch as much as two guineas – the equivalent, today, of around £300.
.

The valiant dead used for fertilize

The most recently discovered casualty of the battle was found in 2012 under a car park during the reconstruction of the Waterloo visitor centre. Historian Gareth Glover has pieced together all the available clues discovered with the skeleton and believes that the soldier was Friedrich Brandt, a Hanoverian fighting with the King’s German Legion. Brandt apparently suffered from curvature of the spine but he was killed by a musket ball – still lodged in his ribs when his body was found. This is the first completely intact skeleton to be found on the site for almost 200 years. And that’s no surprise since, until about fifty years after the battle, companies considered it “fair game” to dig up battlefield dead from their mass graves and grind down their bones for sale to local farmers as fertilizer!

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 8th July 2019, 12:29 PM

Please see https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5&&FORM=VRDGAR which is an excellent piece of detective work... and fascinating comparison of the cannon used by both sides and the effect of the weather. The film also discusses the ground vital to Wellingtons troops and how it was disastrous for Napoleon. Battle casualties and how the British quality of treatment had improved is discussed. The point when Ney who had taken over on the battlefield is examined showing a shocking error of judgement when he ordered a huge attack based on the false personal belief that the British were in retreat. This video is highly recommended.

Jim McDougall · 8th July 2019, 04:26 PM

Ibrahim thank you for the most interesting look into some of the other aspects of the various 'uses' and perspectives involved in both human remains and battlefield debris outside the 'souvenir' phenomenon.
While it is sometimes difficult to consider the rather dark and sometimes grisly elements of these circumstances, we remember that the weapons we study are also commonly involved in battles and warfare. Looking into the entire scope of these contexts is sometimes necessary for historians of arms, simply for perspective and understanding of the times, though many might consider such views sensationalized and reprehensible.

As someone who has gone through many historic references on battles and military history of campaigns, I always appreciate these insights, however harsh they might seem, as I more appreciate what these people went through.

I think of the apocryphal quote by Robert E. Lee , Confederate General (1862) ..
"...it is well that war is so terrible- lest we grow too fond of it".

And on the opposing Union side, General William Sherman,
"...war is hell".
That brief version removes the full context of what he actually said..
"...I am tired and sick of war. It's glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have never fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for vengeance and desolation. War is hell. "

17th June 2019, 12:53 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Governor, history is profuse in narrating epic episodes in that a handful of dudes defended a post from the assault of a zillion foes. We know of some that would put Leonidas far back in the queue for the Guiness . I gather that, the difference between facts and myth often resides in the ratio of combatants allegedly registered in either side. The ammo business ... Grapeshot and shrapnell were both (also) used in the Peninsular war, together with canister, which curiously we call lanternetas (small lanterns). Wellington was not fond of shrapnell, which he personally checked that its effect wasn't lethal enough; plenty wounds but ... not deadly as should. He saw General Simon being hit by shrapnell in his face and head; the bullets were removed like it is done when one accidently gets hit by birth shot in the face whilst duck hunting (SIC); not actually seriously wounded. When he heard that in Badajoz they used such grenades with the 24 pounders as a solution, he ordered that cannons of equal caliber were loaded with musket balls, to obviate such system flaws and ensure that the wounds did in fact incapacitate the ones that received them. One not so talked about apparatus that became a latter occasional addition (1823-1814) in this war was the explosive rocket, invented by Baronet Sir William Congreve. . Attached Images

17th June 2019, 01:06 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	True, later high explosives worked better. Actually wounding an enemy is better strategically as it takes more manpower to care for the wounded , more food, etc, too, a dead person just needs a hole, or not even that. Conceive's rockets were in use in the war of 1812, and included in the US's national anthem (the Rockets red glare). Apparently they also were under development in the Peninsular war.` https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deTf57rUqE I like the flank officer's sword....

17th June 2019, 01:54 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Yes, but a wounded may recover and return to battle; thus a good enemy is a dead one. I like the peas ... not loose, but with meat cubes and poached eggs.

6th July 2019, 04:06 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	That is a fascinating perspective on 'battle' and in this case, returning to the original theme of the thread posed toward possible 'Waterloo' provenance of a cannon ball. The scavenging of battlefields was of course well known practice, and while the initial 'retrieval' of goods was by soldiers, but in their case mostly taking much needed supply materials including clothing or what was required. In most cases, soldiers' kit was meagre and worn or damaged, and they took the opportunity to 'upgrade' or replace their own items. For example, at Waterloo, one badly wounded soldier was still cognizant in hours after the battle, but his wounds so debilitating he could not speak. He was partially dragged as his boots were pulled off. These were the items precious to the soldiers trying to survive. Coats, and belts, perhaps ammunition cases etc. would replace items the soldiers had and were damaged or lost during the battle. Items such as weaponry, and ordnance etc. were most often dragged off by civilian population drawn to the place for retrieval of such goods which could be readily sold as surplus, scrap or sometimes novelties. Often the ghastly business of 'clean up' of decomposed and further ravaged bodies by predators, beyond the obvious carnage of the wounds that killed these men, was often not done for months and longer. Indeed, the more ghastly treatment of these remains did even include pulverizing of bones into fertilizer.....a matter of fact of the unceremonious disregard for men who fought heroically for their causes. The case described here of excavation of a field hospital is interesting as the resulting interment of remains was likely situated away from the primary locations of battle, and the lesser volume more reasonably handled.

8th July 2019, 11:33 AM	#7
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Incredible as it may seem!~after Waterloo there was a run on false teeth … Waterloo Teeth – the latest fashion They say that, on the day after the battle, you couldn’t find a pair of pliers for love nor money. Not for fifty miles around. The new fashion – in London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg and New York – was for dentures fitted with real teeth. And there, on those few square miles of Belgian soil, lay no less than 50,000 potential donors, most of them dead, the rest so close to it that it didn’t much matter. It was the Etruscans, apparently, who first invented dentures – around 700 BC. Teeth from another person or an animal, such as an ox, were inserted into a band of gold with a metal pin and fitted on to the remaining teeth. Dentures remained an option only for the wealthy as they were expensive to make. They appeared again in the 18th Century when sugar addiction had taken a dreadful toll of Europe’s teeth. Fans became popular, not to keep their owners cool, but to waft away the stench of gum disease. False teeth became popular once more. And perhaps the most famous complete set of dentures was that owned by George Washington. It’s pure myth that they were made of wood, of course. In truth, each tooth was carved from ivory, set into lead, and spring-loaded. Uncomfortable! After Waterloo, battlefield casualties became the main source of denture teeth until after the American Civil War. And, after Waterloo, a good incisor could fetch as much as two guineas – the equivalent, today, of around £300. . The valiant dead used for fertilize The most recently discovered casualty of the battle was found in 2012 under a car park during the reconstruction of the Waterloo visitor centre. Historian Gareth Glover has pieced together all the available clues discovered with the skeleton and believes that the soldier was Friedrich Brandt, a Hanoverian fighting with the King’s German Legion. Brandt apparently suffered from curvature of the spine but he was killed by a musket ball – still lodged in his ribs when his body was found. This is the first completely intact skeleton to be found on the site for almost 200 years. And that’s no surprise since, until about fifty years after the battle, companies considered it “fair game” to dig up battlefield dead from their mass graves and grind down their bones for sale to local farmers as fertilizer!

8th July 2019, 12:29 PM	#8
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Please see https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5&&FORM=VRDGAR which is an excellent piece of detective work... and fascinating comparison of the cannon used by both sides and the effect of the weather. The film also discusses the ground vital to Wellingtons troops and how it was disastrous for Napoleon. Battle casualties and how the British quality of treatment had improved is discussed. The point when Ney who had taken over on the battlefield is examined showing a shocking error of judgement when he ordered a huge attack based on the false personal belief that the British were in retreat. This video is highly recommended.

8th July 2019, 04:26 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	Ibrahim thank you for the most interesting look into some of the other aspects of the various 'uses' and perspectives involved in both human remains and battlefield debris outside the 'souvenir' phenomenon. While it is sometimes difficult to consider the rather dark and sometimes grisly elements of these circumstances, we remember that the weapons we study are also commonly involved in battles and warfare. Looking into the entire scope of these contexts is sometimes necessary for historians of arms, simply for perspective and understanding of the times, though many might consider such views sensationalized and reprehensible. As someone who has gone through many historic references on battles and military history of campaigns, I always appreciate these insights, however harsh they might seem, as I more appreciate what these people went through. I think of the apocryphal quote by Robert E. Lee , Confederate General (1862) .. "...it is well that war is so terrible- lest we grow too fond of it". And on the opposing Union side, General William Sherman, "...war is hell". That brief version removes the full context of what he actually said.. "...I am tired and sick of war. It's glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have never fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for vengeance and desolation. War is hell. "