Cowards at Waterloo?

Response to British Allegations by Renard

Translated by George Nafziger

"Response to the British Allegations on the Conduct of the Belgian Troops in 1815" (Brussels: 28 March 1855) by a General Officer (Renard)

Editor's note: The outrage of Belgians about the alleged "cowardice" of their troops at Waterloo prompted the publication of this booklet. The preface helps explain why this is an important national issue:

"During the night of 15-16 December [1854?], during a discussion of a bill relative to the enlistment of foreigners, [British] Count Glengall asked from which countries the Minister expected to enlist such troops.... He added "that each soldier in the Crimea knew war well from the former continental wars, the Hanoverians and Brunswickers had valiantly fought by our sides; that each soldier had read the history of the battle of Waterloo, and knew perfectly which foreign troops were solid and which fled. He hoped that serious efforts would be made to avoid "enrolling auxiliaries in the countries, who on that day, had their troops abandon their standards in a cowardly manner." And who were these troops that cowardly abandoned their standards? The Morning-Herald of 16 December, in reporting this discourse, praised and approved these words...[and] added...the following observation: "It is the absolute truth that a considerable number of Germans and Belgians had fled at Waterloo, and that the Hanoverians and Brunswickers had fought like lions."

This booklet, quoted in Andre Dellevoet's article, further noted that "[u]ntil the end of the day the 7th [Belgian Line] did not depart its positions [in Bossu Wood at Quatre Bras]. The soldiers expended all their cartridges and lost 92 men and several officers, of whom two were killed."

At Waterloo: "At noon, a battery of 80 guns, placed near Belle-Alliance, vomited death on Wellington's left and particularly on Bijlandt's Brigade, the only force which remained exposed, as the British brigades had withdrawn behind the crest of the ridge. Napoleon said, in his memoirs, that this division should have been entirely destroyed by the shot and cannister. This terrible cannonade lasted two hours and during those two hours the 7th Line was to remain immobile under this rain of projectiles, lying down on the road, having before it its voltigeur company deployed as skirmishers.

"Authors differ in what happened...at this supreme moment. Major Dammitz, a Prussian officer, writing from official documents, said that it was unable to stop the French because its fire was too weak, that it was broken by the enemy charge, but that it quickly rallied and came forward to support Picton's division. The French account in the Sentinelle de l'Armee contains the same language. Van Loben-Sels, much better informed, states that the center was essentially ceded, but that the two wings remained, and that, a short time later, the brigade, partially rallied, returned to the battle."

At the end of the battle: "We [the 7th Line] were no more than 300 men, including cadres. All the rest were killed or wounded in this terrible affair.... [Later at a] review by the Duke of Wellington, he stopped before the battalion and saluted its brave conduct at Waterloo....

"...the 7th Line was well led at Waterloo.... This reputation of the [7th Line] would not have been acquired through cowardice. We say, therefore, that the 7th Line rigorously executed its duty at Waterloo."

More Cowards at Waterloo?

Back to Table of Contents -- Napoleon #16
Back to Napoleon List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 by Napoleon LLC.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
The full text and graphics from other military history magazines and gaming magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com
Order Napoleon magazine direct