1815, 1915
Yesterday I toured the Waterloo battlefield. Quite a contrast to the sprawling WWI and WWII battlefields I’ve been visiting over the past 10 days. I could see virtually the entire battlefield standing on a single spot in the center of the Allied lines. (I could definitely see the entire field from the Lion Monument, a man-made monstrosity erected years after the battle.)
In the WWI battle sites I have visited—and virtually all the ones I haven’t—the armies attacked straight ahead because there were no flanks: frontal assaults were the rule because there was no real alternative.
Napoleon, in contrast, had no such excuse. He attacked straight ahead across rising, open ground against enemy troops posted in strong buildings (e.g., Hougoumont) or in defilade even though there were two open flanks. He wasn’t forced to attack straight ahead. He chose to.
I’ve read some about Waterloo, though nearly not as much as about American Civil War battles, including Gettysburg, Sharpsburg, Chickamauga, etc., and I know that Napoleon’s decisions are controversial. There are many explanations for his decisions, but after going over the battlefield, it seems difficult to come up with a convincing reason to do what he did. For a man whose very name is a byword for military genius, his final battle was the epitome of tactical mediocrity and unimaginativeness—at best.
I also visited the sites of the battles leading up to Waterloo, Quatre Bras and Ligny (including visits to towns defended by the Prussians, such as St. Amand). Or tried to, anyways. There’s nothing at either battlefield to speak of.
The differing psychological impact of c1815 and c1915 battlefields on me, as a visitor, was striking. The carnage and slaughter at Waterloo was immense (with estimates of 63,000 casualties in total, or about a third of the combatants), and far more concentrated geographically and in time than in the typical WWI battle. Yet, at Waterloo, as at Gettysburg, or Blenheim, or other pre-20th century battlefields I have visited, I do not experience the same sense of melancholy as I did in visiting the Meuse-Argonne, or Verdun. I don’t understand why exactly, but I think it has something to do with the fact that the WWI attacks were futile, and had virtually no chance of achieving decision. Men were sacrificed wholesale for no purpose, and no real possibility of achieving any purpose. In contrast, although decision on the battlefield was rare prior to the 20th century (as shown by Russell Weigley in his The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo), there was always the possibility of a decisive result. Waterloo, for instance, was clearly decisive. The sacrifices of WWI seem pointless, and without even the possibility of a point. That’s not true of earlier combats. Nor is it true of WWII battles, many of which were tactically and strategically decisive.
Perhaps that’s the difference, but I’m not sure. What I am sure of is that I left Waterloo in a far different psychological state than I left Verdun.
I think it has more to do with the passage of time than anything else. In the US, Vietnam even today is far more tragic than WW1, even though Americans lost twice as many soldiers in the latter – and from a twice smaller population. Wait a century, and I’m pretty sure that battles like Verdun or Passchendaele will retreat into historical oblivion. A few more centuries, and even events like the Holocaust will be a footnote in history and of no significant emotional import.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — June 15, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: […]
Pingback by Tweets that mention https://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=3905utm_sourcepingback -- Topsy.com — June 15, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
I disagree, S/O. The difference in time between, say, Gettysburg and Verdun–a little more than 50 years–is about half the difference in time between Verdun and today. Both, even to someone of my advanced age, are purely historical events, with no personal connection whatsoever. But they have very different effects on me. Similarly, even comparing WWII battles, I have very different visceral reactions. Normandy or the Bulge do not unsettle me the way that WWI-like battles in the Pacific do (e.g., Peleliu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa).
You might enjoy these this post by the War Nerd; he has an interesting take on why Gettysburg and the Civil War in general were so cool.
WAR NERD: BATTLE PAINTINGS: I MAY NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT ART, BUT I’VE GOT A GUN
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — June 16, 2010 @ 4:47 pm