Light Bobs at Waterloo

Haven't gotten much done in the past couple weeks. Quite a bit of reading, at least, though not much that will translate to gaming any time soon. Like my gaming projects, I tend to read several books at once, depending on my mood. The only one I've finished of the five or so I'm working on this week is this:

The Great Waterloo Controversy is dense. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm its intended reader, for Napoleonics are not my all-consuming interest. I was interested in its promise of a light infantry regiment's role during the Hundred Days, but this isn't precisely a reader's book. It's more aimed at researchers.

One of the things I like about British regimental history is that every unit has its own heroes, battle honours, traditions and rivalries. The 52nd's most famous moment, according to this book, would seem to be its role at the "crisis" of Waterloo, when Napoleon's Guard charged the British line and was driven back in disorder, leading to the rout of the entire French army. The Grenadier Guards got the credit for this in the popular eye, leading to their name - not because they were grenadiers, but because they defeated grenadiers. (That's an odd one, come to think of it, taking a name from one's enemies rather than one's victories.)

The 52nd Light Infantry also had a role in this, though, wheeling onto a flank of the advancing French columns and firing into them. And partly because of a couple officers who wrote prolifically about their own units' accomplishments, this led to a feud - though less between the regiments than between their retired officers, in the pages of gentlemen's magazines. I had never heard of this feud, but it was apparently pervasive enough that the author chose to focus, microscopically, on the 52nd's actions during the battle.

Much of the volume is taken up by soldiers' writings, decades after the battle, dispatched to William Siborne, who built a famous scale model of Waterloo. He assembled an enormous collection of primary sources in his effort to do things accurately, with regiments in their correct positions at a specific moment. This led to much confusion, in part because memories are malleable, and the earlier books on the topic ended up influencing the memories of those who read them.

So most of the book discusses the 52nd's organization and movements, down to the quarter hour and which company was where in line (necessary because this explains differing viewpoints between the reporters, who often saw things the men in the next company over did not on the undulating terrain, and worsened by confusion over which officers were in which company). He delves into muster rolls and court-martial reports to determine exactly how many men were present. The 52nd was actually the strongest British battalion on the day, with over a thousand officially and narrowed to 990-1000 by the author's research.

The leftovers were variously sick, deserted or on baggage duties, and the wordage spent on this is interesting as an account of a soldier's life. Glover discusses, for example, the typical percentage of men who fell out on the march - particularly important to the Duke's army because only men who were actually present and not under arrest received prize money, medals and other honors. These included an extra two years of enlistment for purposes of pension accounting, though the award was very specifically worded to not allow men to just leave two years before their enlistment was up!

The names of the dead and wounded are included in the appendices, including their origins, prior careers and enlistment dates. Several of the dead had enlisted in 1799 - a sad end to such a long career.

Even the terrain is discussed, to determine how dips and ridges both divided the attacking French columns and prevented observation, to the point of calculating how much earth, and from where, was moved to create a monument on the site!

Glover even spends a couple chapters shooting down conspiracy theories, such as that the Duke of Wellington tried to conceal the 52nd's role in his victory. (He didn't; he just didn't bother to single out many people or regiments in his reports at all.)

Ultimately, Glover synthesizes the various accounts, accepting those that agree and going to extreme lengths to reconcile those that don't. While the detail of a soldier's life on campaign is valuable, much of this is covered in other material, and this book is really for those interested in minutiae of a specific moment in history.