Slitherine

bahdahbum wrote:

came down more on the side of allowing mixed nationality cavalry divisions

All the allied cavalry was organised in one corps , but it was a theoretical organisation as the cavalry was used by brigades

As for the remarks concerning the fact that the british did loose Waterloo, well it was just an iddle remark . They did not use the french system, OK . And they also lost the battle being saved at the end by the timely arrival of the prussians . Ok the DB, brunswick and Hanvrian did loose the battle also . . the prussians are the real victorious side . Hurray for us, they were with Wellington .

I'd feel the same way as you if the contributions and sacrifices of my fellow countrymen had been denigrated after the war by their former allies.

About the battle my view is Napoleon lost (and perhaps there's a view that as a result the French won in the long run ), the Prussians won the battle and the Anglo-Allied army survived - just barely (a "near run thing" as Wellington said and he was there) - and in doing so set the conditions for a Prussian victory.

As an aside, I remember reading somewhere an anecdote about Wellington after the war. He was reading an account of a fellow countryman who had participated in the battle. Wellington was jotting down in the margins "L" and "DL". His companion asked that that meant and the Duke said, "Lie and Damned Lie".

A most enlightening set of books to read are the series entitled, "Battles and Leader of the Civil War" which was a collection of articles written by participants in the American Civil after the war. You can read about the battle from one participant and than read about the same battle from another and not even think that you're reading about the same battle (even if the two writers were on the same side!). It's very clear that one purpose of these first hand accounts isn't an accurate history but really about self-promotion.

Well now that we're updating lists for v2 is anyone keen to have a crack at making this list a little more "wieldy" at 800 points. If anyone is up for it, I could email you the original list in a Word doc and you can make changes in there (so need to draw it all up from scratch).

I think Kit and All want to have a go. They pretty much tell us every club meeting what's wrong and how it should be corrected!

Rather than a single list trying to cover everything,I think this list can happily be divided into 4 separate lists.

Each list would have a core nationality based around a core of one of the following troops types (with the CC being that of that Nationality).
Each list would have the ability to ally in divisions from the other nationalities.

The 4 'core' Nationalities being:

1. British/Hanoverian Infantry
2. British Cavalry
3. Dutch Belgian Infantry
4. Brunswickers (Just for fun. A little 1 division list made of all the Brunswick units, with the Duke as CC, to which 2-3 allied Dutch or British divisions could be added).

Plus the existing 1815 Dutch-Belgian Reserve Corps.

This seems a sensible approach.

Probably make the Brunswickers good on their own option (as you describe) or with another option.

8 battalions of infantry. 2 batteries and something around 6 squadrons. Clearly a small mixed division.