Chapter XV (2)

[621] The original has “corps”; but army-corps are not meant. The same word is used below,—“quelques corps légers.”

[622] _Ante_ p. 212; App. B, _post_, p. 358.

[623] Gérard (Dern. Obs. p. 19) remarks:—“If one analyzes separately the text of these two despatches, * * * one perceives that the Emperor has spoken of the direction of Wavre only because he finds it indicated in the reports of the commander of the right wing. The principal object of both of them was to insist upon movements which would bring the troops of the right wing near the main body.” Gérard is here referring to the order sent to Grouchy at 1 P.M. (_post_, p. 270), as well as to that dated 10 A.M.

[624] Chesney, p. 206; Kennedy, p. 162; Gardner, p. 161, n.; Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, pp. 78, 80, 87.

[625] Marbot, vol. 3, pp. 404 _et seq._ This letter is chiefly made up from his report, which is to be found in “Napoléon à Waterloo,” pp. 344 _et seq._ The editors of Marbot’s Memoirs say (vol. 3, p. 408) that the steps they have taken to find the report at the War Office have been unsuccessful.

[626] Sometimes called the Wood of Paris.

[627] He commanded the picket at Moustier.

[628] This was Marbot’s own conviction; vol. 3, p. 408.

[629] La Tour d’Auvergne, pp. 270, 271; Charras, vol. 1, pp. 286, 287; Siborne, vol. 1, pp. 400, 401; Napoléon à Waterloo, pp. 279, 280; App. C, xxxiv; _post_, p. 389.

[630] The Grouchy Memoirs (vol. 4, p. 82) give this as 3 o’clock.

[631] The text given in the Grouchy Memoirs, vol. 4, p. 82, replaces this “or” by an “and.” This is not followed in any other work.

[632] The text of the Grouchy Memoirs inserts here the following:—“and to seek to come near to our army, in order that you may join us before any body of troops can put itself between us. I do not indicate to you the direction you should take.”

[633] The original is “engagée.” “This letter,” says Marshal Grouchy (Fragm. Hist., Lettre à MM. Méry et Barthélemy; p. 14), “was in a hand writing so difficult to decipher that I read it, as did also my chief-of-staff, and my senior aide-de-camp, ‘gagnée.’” The chief-of-staff, General Le Sénécal, says that the Marshal closely questioned the officer who was the bearer of the despatch, but he was so intoxicated that they could not get anything from him. Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, pp. 132, 133. _Cf._ Gérard, Dern. Obs., p. 20, n.

[634] Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, p. 87.

_NOTES TO CHAPTER XV._

1. The first question that demands consideration in connection with the matters narrated in this chapter is this:—

Was it wise in Napoleon to detach from his main army such a large force as that which he gave to Grouchy? Or,—to state the question more carefully,—Napoleon, being, at 1 P.M. of the 17th (through his own neglect, but the cause is not important in this connection), in ignorance of the direction of the retreat of the Prussians, but having in mind that they might be intending to unite with the English and fight another battle for the defence of Brussels,[635]—was it wise in him to detach 33,000 men from his main army to find out about and take care of the Prussians?

This question, it must be observed, is quite a different one from that presented to Napoleon in the forenoon of the 17th, when he and Grouchy and every one else believed that the Prussians had fallen back on Namur. If the Prussians had retreated on Namur, they had assuredly given up all idea of further coöperation with the English, at any rate for the present. The two corps entrusted to Marshal Grouchy might perhaps accelerate their retreat, and ought to be able to prevent an offensive return on their part against the communications of the French. For this purpose they could perfectly well be spared; for the army which Napoleon was taking with him to Waterloo was able alone to defeat the army of Wellington. It was a somewhat larger army,[636]—it was composed throughout of excellent troops,—it was full of enthusiasm,—and it was commanded by the greatest general of the day. Nor was it a matter of any great importance that Grouchy could not well be detached till after twelve o’clock, owing to the necessity of giving his troops time to recover from the fatigues of the battle of the day before, the stress of which had fallen almost wholly on them, for, if the Prussians had retreated on Namur and Liége, there was no special and imminent danger to be apprehended.[637] To detach Marshal Grouchy with 33,000 men under these circumstances, which were then believed to exist, was one thing. But the question we are now considering is,—whether Napoleon’s adhering to the plan of sending Grouchy off with two corps is to be justified after he had seen reason to be apprehensive of the possibility of the Prussians uniting with the English to fight another battle for the defence of Brussels.

This danger of the union of the two allied armies was, as the Bertrand order shows, distinctly recognized as a possible danger by Napoleon when he dictated the order to Bertrand. It is true that Napoleon did not think it likely that this union would be made, but he knew perfectly well that if it should be made, it would place him in the greatest peril. He, therefore, expressly warned Grouchy that the Prussians might be intending to unite with the English to fight another battle for the defence of Brussels; and we have seen that, in the event of Grouchy’s finding this to be the case, Napoleon expected him to cross the Dyle and act in conjunction with the main army. If this was, in Napoleon’s opinion, to be his true course in the not impossible event of Blücher’s falling back on Wavre, why send him off at all? What was there to be gained by sending him off which made it worth while to run the risks inseparable from detaching such a large force from the main army when such a terrible danger as the union of the Prussian and English armies was even remotely apprehended? For there certainly was a chance of Grouchy’s not coming back in time to prevent the catastrophe; Napoleon ran the risk of Grouchy’s not receiving accurate or trustworthy information as to the doings of the enemy,—of his not acting on the information which he might obtain in accordance with sound military principles,—of his being delayed by the destruction of the bridges, and by the manœuvres of the enemy.

But this is not all. If the Prussians had fallen back on Wavre with the intention of uniting with the English and fighting another battle for the defence of Brussels, as Napoleon in the Bertrand order warns Grouchy they might be intending to do, they must have carried out their project in great part at the time when Napoleon was dictating his order to Bertrand. On this hypothesis, they had certainly already obtained a great advantage over any force sent to pursue them or to interrupt the execution of their scheme. Was it not therefore much wiser to keep the whole army together, well in hand, and under the Emperor’s immediate direction?

These risks and chances, and others, Napoleon took, when he sent Grouchy off with his 33,000 men; and for what?

The fact probably is this; that Grouchy was originally ordered to follow up and observe the Prussians when every one supposed them to be retreating towards the Rhine, and especially to prevent or check any offensive return upon the French communications; and that when Napoleon, between 12 and 1, received information which awakened in his mind doubts of the correctness of this supposition, and even some apprehension that Blücher might be intending to unite with Wellington and fight another battle for the defence of Brussels, he adhered to his original disposition of Grouchy’s force, contenting himself with giving him an express warning of the danger to be apprehended.

The question then comes down to this:—

If the Prussians were going to separate themselves from the English, there was no great risk in making such a large detachment from the main army, and there might very possibly be occasions in which a force of 33,000 men might accomplish more than a smaller one. It may, however, well be questioned whether half the number would not have answered every end, and allowed the Emperor the use of 15,000 more men in his contest with Wellington, who certainly could have brought to the encounter 18,000 more men than he actually had on the field.

On the other hand, if the Prussians were intending to unite with the English, as Napoleon had some reason at any rate to believe, and if Grouchy did not rejoin the main army, or at least act in connection with it, or defeat the Prussians while marching to the field of battle, Napoleon was ruined. There was then the risk of his not doing either of these things,—whether through the Prussians having so many hours the start of him,—or through ignorance of the facts,—bad roads,—broken bridges,—unsound judgment,—it matters not,—and that risk was assumed by Napoleon when he detached him, without, as it seems to us, any compensating advantage.

Our conclusion, then, is this: if Napoleon had sent off Grouchy with his 33,000 men in the full belief that the Prussians had fallen back on Namur, he would be chargeable only with neglect in not having found out where they had gone; but his sending off this large force after he had so much reason to apprehend that the Prussians were intending to unite with the English that he expressly warned Grouchy to that effect, was to take a wholly unnecessary and very dangerous risk. It was to persist in carrying out a plan which new information had rendered entirely inapplicable to the circumstances as now understood to exist.

Had Napoleon, when he had come to entertain the apprehension that the Prussians might be intending to unite with the English, followed on the 17th the same general plan which he had adopted on the 15th, and, leaving, say, Pajol with the division of Teste, to find out where the Prussians had gone and what they were proposing to do, had taken the rest of the army with him, sending Grouchy at daybreak of the 18th with one, or perhaps both, of his corps to St. Lambert, with instructions to delay the Prussians in every way possible should they come from Wavre either to attack the main army or to reinforce Wellington, he would have taken no serious risk, and he would have had his whole army under his own eye and subject to his immediate control on the day of the great battle. In this case Grouchy would have performed at St. Lambert the task which Ney performed at Quatre Bras,—of preventing the intervention of the other allied army in the battle then in progress. There is not the least reason to suppose that this course would have affected the decision either of Wellington to accept battle or of Blücher to support him. But the chances in favor of Napoleon’s success in the battle would have been vastly greater than they actually were.

2. We have expressed the doubt whether, even if the Prussians were known to be separating from the English, it would not have been wiser if Napoleon had given Grouchy only one corps wherewith to pursue them. But while this may be true, we cannot agree with Sir James Shaw-Kennedy in his reasons for criticising the detachment of Grouchy’s force from the main army. He says:—[638]

“His (Napoleon’s) great difficulty—as he ought well to have known
from the experience of a whole succession of disastrous campaigns to
his armies in Spain—was the overthrow of the Anglo-Allied army; and
against it he should have led his last man and horse, even had the
risk been great in the highest degree; which, as has been seen,[639]
it clearly was not. Had Napoleon attacked the Anglo-Allied army with
his whole force, and succeeded in defeating it, there could be little
question of his being able to defeat afterwards the Prussian army
when separated from Wellington.”

And again:—[640]

“If Grouchy’s proper place was on the field of battle at Waterloo,
then Napoleon should have sent for him at daylight on the morning
of the 18th, when he saw the Anglo-Allied army in position and
determined to attack it.”

The difficulty with this reasoning, as it seems to us, lies in the fact that it was not that he might be strong enough to defeat Wellington that Napoleon needed to have all his army on the field of Waterloo, but in order to prevent his being overwhelmed by the union of the army of Blücher to that of Wellington. With the army of Wellington the force Napoleon had at Waterloo was abundantly able to cope; but against the two armies of Wellington and Blücher united, he was certain to succumb. Hence, inasmuch as he, at 1 P.M. of the 17th, had changed his mind as to the Prussian retreat, had come to regard as very questionable the view which until after 12 o’clock of that day he certainly had entertained, that the Prussians were separating themselves definitely from the English, and had recognized the possibility of their uniting with the English and even joining with them in a battle to be fought for the defence of Brussels, he should have changed his dispositions accordingly. He should have left a comparatively small force,—perhaps of cavalry only,—to follow up and find out about the Prussians, and should have taken all his army-corps with him, because if the Prussians should attempt to take part in the battle he would be sure to need every man he could muster.[641]

3. It seems for many writers to be well-nigh impossible to treat separately of the conduct of Marshal Grouchy. This may require some effort of mind; but it surely is worth while to make it.[642] Suppose we are of opinion that Napoleon made a mistake in the first place in detaching him with his 33,000 men; that he was furthermore inexcusable in not advising him on the night of the 17th and 18th of the most important fact that the two armies were confronting each other at Mont St. Jean,—in not sending him the information which Domon had picked up as to the retreat of a part of the Prussians towards Wavre,—and, finally, in not directing him in precise terms, that, if he should find that the Prussians were retiring on Wavre, he should cross the Dyle at Moustier and Ottignies, and operate in connection with the main army. Suppose, we say, we find all this to be true. We have yet to pass upon Grouchy’s conduct.

The Emperor’s faults cannot excuse Grouchy’s faults, nor can his faults excuse those of the Emperor.[643] The object of military criticism is not to see which officer made the most mistakes.

4. As to the proper course for Marshal Grouchy to take after he became satisfied (as he did about daybreak of the 18th) that the Prussians were retreating on Wavre, we have seen that the principal continental critics,—Jomini, Clausewitz and Charras,—are of opinion that he should at once have manœuvred to his left and crossed the Dyle, so as to get in communication with the main army under the Emperor.

But General Hamley[644] is of a different opinion. He approves of Grouchy’s direct movement on Wavre. After remarking that Grouchy did not know that Wellington would stop to fight at Waterloo, he says:—

“He thought the Prussians, if they were really moving on Wavre,
intended to join Wellington at Brussels. * * * And were they so
moving, he, by marching to Wavre, would threaten decisively their
communications with their base by Louvain, and so either prevent the
execution of their project, or render it disastrous.”

It is unnecessary to say anything in regard to this observation, except that, if Grouchy thought as Hamley thinks he did,—and as he very likely did,—he was wholly mistaken as to the intention of Marshal Blücher. Very possibly he might have injured the Prussians a good deal had they been intending to go to Brussels; but, as they were, on the contrary, intending to join Wellington, who had taken up a position for battle to the south of the Forest of Soignes, Grouchy’s calculations, as given us by Hamley, were beside the mark, and his movements were entirely useless.

It is certainly true, as Hamley says,[645] that Grouchy did not know that “Wellington would stop to fight at Waterloo.” But Grouchy expressly says that Napoleon told him[646] that he was going “to march upon the English, and fight them, if they stood this side [_i.e._, south of] the Forest of Soignes,” _i.e._, at Waterloo. This indicated that Napoleon thought it quite possible that the English might take their stand there and fight. And the Bertrand order warned Grouchy that the Prussians might be intending to unite with them to fight a battle for the defence of Brussels. But this order, as we have observed before, is utterly ignored by General Hamley.

5. We have pointed out in the text that the three principal Continental critics,—Jomini, Clausewitz and Charras,—unite in the opinion that Marshal Grouchy should have marched at daybreak for the bridge of Moustier,—covering the movement by his cavalry. What would have been the result of this manœuvre? (See Map 9.)

Let us suppose that the Prussian detachment of Ledebur, which was stationed at Mont St. Guibert to observe the movements of Marshal Grouchy’s column, had been driven out of their position, or flanked out of it (as they finally were), before six in the morning, by the French cavalry, and had been compelled to retire to the neighborhood of Wavre. The movements of the main body of Grouchy’s command might, therefore, without much difficulty, have been concealed from observation. At least this seems to be assumed by Jomini,[647] who says that Grouchy could have been at the bridge of Moustier at 10 A.M.,—and then have moved “on Wavre by Limale, pushing Exelmans’ dragoons on St. Lambert, or else have marched to Lasne himself.”

But Charras[648] thinks that the movement to Moustier would have been at once perceived by Ledebur’s cavalry, and that Grouchy would probably, on arriving at Moustier and Ottignies, have found himself in face of 40,000 men and 150 pieces of cannon, in position behind the Dyle, and that it could only have been by a very unlikely concurrence of circumstances that Grouchy could have seized these bridges before the Prussians would have been in sufficient force to oppose him.

These conclusions seem to us very strained. Grouchy had 6,000 excellent cavalry. Ledebur’s detachment consisted of two battalions of infantry, four squadrons of cavalry and two guns,—possibly 1,500 men in all.[649] A movement on Corbaix would have compelled him to fall back to La Baraque as surely at five in the morning as at one in the afternoon, when, as we have seen, it had this effect. Certainly, Ledebur could have been got out of the way, and could only have reported that the French were very active, and were manœuvring apparently on Wavre by way of Corbaix and La Baraque. We see no reason to doubt that Jomini is perfectly correct in supposing that the column of Marshal Grouchy, with the exception of one of his cavalry divisions, say, that of Pajol, supported, perhaps, by the infantry division of Teste, could have crossed the bridges of Moustier and Ottignies, without any molestation whatever, by or soon after 10 A.M., and that they might have been well on their way towards Lasne and St. Lambert before the Prussians were aware what they were about.

In speculations of this kind, it is very easy, of course, to omit by accident some of the _data_ of the problem. But when it is remembered that the principal subject which the Prussians were contemplating that morning was not the movements of the 12,000 or 15,000 men, who were (as they supposed)[650] all the troops which Napoleon had detached against them, but the very serious question whether the whole army, or three-fourths of it, should march across the country to attack Napoleon and succor Wellington, we can hardly believe that any reports which Ledebur could have brought in would have brought 40,000 men to the bridges of Moustier and Ottignies by 10 or 10.30 A.M.

It seems to us, then, altogether probable that Marshal Grouchy could have crossed the Dyle at Moustier and Ottignies with the bulk of his forces before 11 A.M.[651]

At this hour, only “the advanced guard of Bülow’s corps had * * * reached St. Lambert. The 16th, and then the 13th, brigade arrived much later, and the 14th brigade, which formed the rear-guard was a long way behind.”[652] At this hour the Ist, IId and IIId Corps were still in and about Wavre. It would have been at this moment, when the IVth Corps was thus strung out, toiling through the bad roads, that Grouchy would have made his appearance, and have commenced his march from Moustier and Ottignies to Lasne and St. Lambert. Can it be believed that he would not have stopped Bülow? What else could Bülow have done but halt, and concentrate his command, and await the reinforcements which were expected from Wavre? But this would have involved him in an engagement with Grouchy’s force, from which he could be released only by the arrival of those reinforcements. When would they have arrived? (See Map 10.)

If Grouchy’s movement on Moustier had not been observed and promptly reported to Blücher,—which is the assumption on which we are proceeding, as being on the whole the most probable,—there is no reason to suppose that the Ist and IId Prussian Corps would have moved out of Wavre earlier than they did,—that is, about noon.[653] The IId Corps followed the IVth, and would of course have become engaged with Grouchy. The IIId would in time very likely have followed the IId; but it probably would not have left Wavre till much later. These three corps would have been Grouchy’s opponents; they would have outnumbered him considerably, and would, no doubt, ultimately have worsted him. But he probably would have prevented any portion of their troops from attacking the main army under Napoleon.

As for the Ist Corps, there would have been nothing to prevent its marching along the northerly road by way of Ohain to join Wellington, if Zieten had thought it safe to run the chance of the Anglo-Dutch army holding out until his arrival.

What effect these operations would have had on the issue of the battle of Waterloo will be considered later.

6. We have stated above[654] that Grouchy, once arrived at La Baraque, might have crossed the Dyle by the four bridges of Moustier and Ottignies, Limale and Limelette, without, as it seems probable to us, encountering serious opposition.[655] This view is strongly maintained by Thiers, and as strongly contested by Charras. The latter’s principal reason for doubting the feasibility of this movement is the supposed presence in the woods of Sarats and Warlombrout, which line the road from La Baraque to Wavre on the east and west sides respectively, just after passing the former place, of the two divisions of Reckow and Brause of the IId Corps, some 11,000 or 12,000 men.[656] The wood of Warlombrout lies between the road leading to Moustier and that leading to Limelette.

We think Charras in error as to the advanced position of these two brigades, or divisions, as they may more properly be called.

Siborne makes no mention at all of the occupation of the wood of Warlombrout, and says that that of Sarats was occupied by some battalions of the 8th brigade, Reckow’s,[657] and that the rest of the brigade was in rear of the wood. He says that the 7th brigade, that of Brause, was in reserve. Ollech[658] says that Reckow’s brigade sent two battalions into this wood of Sarats,[659] and that the brigade took up position between Manil and St. Anne, which is nearly a mile in rear of the wood; and that the other brigade was in rear of this. He says nothing about the occupation of the wood of Warlombrout.

We do not know where Charras obtained his information; but it seems quite clear that the movement to the bridges would not have met with the amount of opposition which he claims. These brigades of Reckow and Brause were portions of the IId Corps, and were expecting to cross the Dyle at Wavre, and march to support Bülow. No one, of course, can say what these troops would have done had Grouchy attempted to cross the Dyle by the bridges or any of them; but it is certain that these troops were not then expecting any such movement, nor were they stationed where they could at once or easily have interfered with it.

7. Where was Grouchy when he heard the sound of the cannon of Waterloo, and rejected the advice of Gérard to march to the support of the Emperor?

That it was at Sart-à-Walhain where Marshal Grouchy heard the sound of the cannon of Waterloo, is the universally accepted belief. But it is an error. It may be interesting to see how it originated.

Berton, who wrote in 1818, says[660] that Grouchy’s column “was still at the village of Walhain when it heard the first cannon-shots of Mont St. Jean,” and that it was there that Gérard gave his advice.[661]

Grouchy, writing his “Observations” the same year in Philadelphia, which were reprinted in Paris in 1819, states[662] that the cannon was heard while they were skirmishing in the wood of Limelette, between 1 and 2 P.M.

Gérard, in a letter also written in 1819, states[663] that it was “at Wallin, or Sart-à-Wallin.” He says he found the Marshal eating some strawberries. It was about 11 A.M., a little more, or a little less. He gives an account of the interview, and then says “We quitted Wallin, &c.”

His acting chief-of-staff, Colonel Simon Lorière, says in his report:—[664]

“At 11 o’clock the Third [Fourth] Corps was entirely assembled at
Walin.

“The Count Gérard, who preceded the march of his corps, learnt that
Marshal Grouchy had stopped at a house in the village belonging to
a M. Hollaert; he went there with the officers of his staff; he told
me to follow; we found his Excellency at breakfast.”

Colonel Denniée of Gérard’s staff locates the incident at Sarra-Walin, and speaks of Gérard’s having found the Marshal at breakfast.[665]

Gérard wrote to a friend of his at Brussels to look up M. Hollaert; he did so, and wrote[666] to Gérard to say that he had been to see him at Sarra-Walin.

This seems to have decided Gérard that the place was Sart-à-Walhain; for he writes in 1820 to Colonel Grouchy, a son of the Marshal, as follows:—[667]

“It was not at 3 o’clock in the afternoon that I rejoined the
commander-in-chief of the right wing, but towards 11 o’clock in the
morning; he was at Sarra-Walin, at the house of a M. Hollaert, a
notary, where he was breakfasting.”

Grouchy finally conceded to Gérard that it was long before they were skirmishing in the wood of Limelette, that the sound of the cannon of Waterloo was heard. He admitted in a letter[668] published in 1829, that it was at Sart-à-Walhain, and at 11.30 A.M. This is also the statement made in the Grouchy Memoirs.[669]

Nevertheless it was at Walhain and not at Sart-à-Walhain where Marshal Grouchy was when he heard the sound of the cannon, and Gérard proffered his advice to march toward the field of battle. It is certain that the incident took place at the house of a notary—a M. Hollaert (or Hollert, as it should be spelled),—for many of the officers who give their recollections mention his name; and it is in no wise remarkable that the name of the village in which his house stood should have made no distinct impression on their memories. Now there was at that time no notary at Sart-à-Walhain. There is none now. It is a very small village. There was not in fact a notary’s office at Walhain in 1815; there was none until 1818. But M. Joseph Hollert was in 1815 the notary of the neighboring town of Nil St. Vincent, and he lived in a large house in Walhain known as the Chateau Marette. It was here that he received Marshal Grouchy in the forenoon of the 18th of June, 1815, and it was into his garden that the officers went out from the house to catch the direction of the firing.[670]

The matter is of no very great importance. Still, Walhain was certainly a good mile nearer than Sart-à-Walhain to the bridges, whether Grouchy marched by way of Mont St. Guibert or La Baraque. (See Map 11.)

FOOTNOTES:

[635] See the Bertrand order, _ante_, p. 210.

[636] This statement is true only of the army which the Duke had in line of battle at Waterloo. There were besides some 18,000 men, stationed at Hal and Tubize, of whom he did not avail himself.

[637] “Napoleon would not have lost his line of communication with France had Blücher immediately reoccupied the position of Ligny upon Napoleon’s leaving it; for his advance upon Wellington necessarily opened to him both the Mons and Lille great lines to France.” Kennedy, pp. 154, 155.

[638] Kennedy, p. 157.

[639] _Ante_, p. 274, n. 3.

[640] Kennedy, p. 160; Chesney, pp. 206, 207.

[641] Marshal Soult, according to Baudus (vol. 1, pp. 222, 223), was opposed to detaching Grouchy with the large body of troops assigned to him. He said to one of his aides that it was a great fault to detach so considerable a force from the army which was going to march against the Anglo-Belgian troops; that in the condition in which the defeat of the evening before had put the Prussian army, a feeble force, with the cavalry of General Exelmans, would suffice to follow and observe it in its retreat. We concur in Marshal Soult’s conclusion, but not with his reasons. It was not because the Prussian army was so weak, but because it was still so formidable, that Napoleon should have kept all his army together.

[642] See the admirable observations of Siborne (vol. 1, pp. 318 _et seq._); and of Van Loben Sels, pp. 319 _et seq._ With many writers, to blame Napoleon is to exonerate Grouchy; with others, again, to blame Grouchy is to exonerate Napoleon.

[643] _Cf._ Kennedy, pp. 160, 161; Chesney, pp. 206, 207. On the other hand see Van Loben Sels, pp. 323, 324.

[644] Operations of War, p. 196 _et seq._

[645] Hamley, p. 196.

[646] Frag. Hist.; Lettre à MM. Méry et Barthélemy, p. 5; Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, p. 44.

[647] Jomini, p. 176.

[648] Charras, vol. 2, pp. 62, 63. Hooper’s view [pp. 342 _et seq._] is substantially that of Charras. He also seems to think that unless Grouchy could succeed in defeating the Prussian troops opposed to him, his intervention would be useless. It seems to us, on the other hand, that all that it was needful for Grouchy to do was to engage, and so to detain, the corps of Bülow and Pirch I.; and by marching from the Dyle upon their line of march from Wavre to St. Lambert, he was, it seems to us, certain to accomplish this. This view is well presented by Quinet, pp. 301-304.

[649] Charras, vol. 2, p. 42.

[650] _Ante_, p. 232.

[651] Siborne (vol. 1, p. 320) thinks that Grouchy could have successfully crossed the Dyle even if he had not started from Gembloux earlier than he did.

[652] Siborne, vol. 1, p. 311; Charras, vol. 2, pp. 72, 73.

[653] Charras, vol. 2, p. 43; Siborne, vol. 1, pp. 311, 312. Kennedy (p. 163) seems to suppose that Pirch I. and Zieten followed Bülow without any interval.

[654] _Ante_, p. 259.

[655] Van Loben Sels (pp. 322, 323, 340) is very positive as to this.

[656] Charras, vol. 2, p. 376; also, p. 44.

[657] Siborne, vol. 1, p. 313. He strictly follows Damitz, p. 247.

[658] Ollech, pp. 208, 209.

[659] Called by him Lautelle. It is sometimes called the wood of Lauzel, as it adjoins a farm of that name.

[660] Berton, p. 55.

[661] Berton, pp. 55, 59.

[662] Grouchy, Obs., p. 16.

[663] Quelques Doc., p. 7. He means Walhain and Sart-à-Walhain.

[664] Ib., 12. By “Walin,” he means Walhain.

[665] Quelques Doc., pp. 17, 18. By “Sarra-Walin,” he means Sart-à-Walhain.

[666] Ib., p. 19. His letter was dated September 30, 1819.

[667] Ib., p. 24. See also Gérard’s “Lettre à MM. Germain-Sarrut et B. Saint Edme,” pp. 10, 11; and his “Dernières Observations,” pp. 8, 29.

[668] Fragm. Hist.; Lettre à MM. Méry and Barthélemy, p. 9.

[669] Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, pp. 71, 75.

[670] The writer has abundant proof of the above statements. He has also visited the house. M. Wenseleers, who is referred to in the Preface, obtained for him this information in 1888 and 1889.