Journal articles on the topic 'Bataille de Waterloo (1815)'

La campagne de Waterloo est sans doute la plus étudiée de toute l’histoire. Après une première période où les acteurs, Napoléon surtout, s’efforcèrent de justifier leur conduite, une approche plus scientifique des faits se développa entre 1871 et 1918, même si elle était grevée par le contexte d’un nationalisme croissant. Après une certaine interruption due aux guerres mondiales, de nouvelles études apparurent. On assista à quelques tentatives d’équilibrer les points de vue nationaux, de réévaluer les récits traditionnels et surtout à une nouvelle approche des réalités de la bataille au travers du vécu des hommes. L’histoire culturelle introduit depuis de nouveaux thèmes, alors que se manifeste aussi un désir de retourner aux sources de première main. Cela pourrait susciter une histoire intégrale de la campagne, combinant les archives de tous les camps. Car actuellement, en dépit de la pléthore de publications sur Waterloo, une telle étude n’existe pas.

When Napoleon returned from exile on the island of Elba, he immediately set about gathering the support that he hoped would re-establish him as ruler of France. No sooner had he disembarked at Antibes on 1 March 1815 than he began issuing proclamations in which he portrayed himself as the leading soldier of the Republic and a man of the Revolution. His appeals found a welcome response in the French populace that astonished his opponents and perhaps surprised the emperor as well. Napoleon had changed the very nature of Bonapartism by allying himself with the tradition of the Revolution, and the federation movement which swept across France during the six weeks prior to Waterloo was a direct response to his new appeal.

This study extends recent research on the power transition and hegemonic stability theory to the preindustrial era. It improves on the original power transition theory by relaxing an assumption and by extending the empirical domain. Unlike the original power transition theory, the revised version is not restricted to the period after the industrial revolution and can therefore be applied to the preindustrial era. This study examines the empirical record prior to the industrial revolution to see whether the power transition and hegemonic stability theory holds for that period. The data for 1648 to 1815 indicate strong support for the power transition contention that a rough equality of power between rival sides increases the likelihood of war. That is, when the challenging great power, with its allies' support, catches up with the dominant power, great power war is most likely.

RésuméL’article propose d’appliquer à l’histoire militaire et, plus précisément, aux récits de campagne à la manière de Clausewitz, les modèles venus des théories mathématiques des jeux et de la décision. Il illustre la méthode en revenant sur la campagne de Waterloo et les hypothèses qu’a suscitées l’échec de Napoléon chez les historiens. Ils ne s’accordent pas sur le sens rationnel de la décision qu’il prit le 17 juin 1815 de lancer le détachement de Grouchy contre les Prussiens battus le 16 à Ligny, mais la théorie des jeux permet dans une certaine mesure de les départager. Une fois obtenu ce résultat, l’article se développe sur le plan réflexif et méthodologique. Il compare les objections qu’on peut faire à sa formalisation et celles déjà élevées contre l’école du « récit analytique », puis amplifiant ses réponses, il examine le conflit des modèles mathématisés du choix rationnel avec le récit, mode d’expression canonique de l’historien. La réconciliation qu’il propose finalement se fonde sur une analyse des concepts de narration, de récit explicatif et de modèle.

Op 18 juli 2015 was het precies tweehonderd jaar geleden dat Napoleon met zijn Grande Armée werd verslagen door de geallieerde strijdkrachten in wat de geschiedenis zou ingaan als de Slag bij Waterloo. Tijdens de tien jaar die aan deze nederlaag voorafgingen, bouwde de Franse keizer een gigantische troepenmacht uit waarin de bereden component of cavalerie een zeer belangrijke rol speelde. Omdat de paarden die hierin figureerden eerder al het onderwerp waren van een publicatie in dit tijdschrift, richt dit artikel specifiek de aandacht op de militaire veeartsen die als paardenarts instonden voor de verzorging van de honderdduizenden legerpaarden die tijdens het verloop van het keizerrijk onder de wapens werden gebracht. Na een korte inleiding over het ontstaan van het veeartsenijkundig onderricht, wat hand in hand ging met de geboorte van de militaire veearts, wordt dieper ingegaan op zijn rekrutering, statuut en werkomgeving. Hierbij wordt de rol van de keizer zelf beschreven met een bespreking van het decreet van Moskou dat voor het veeartsenijkundig onderwijs van zeer groot belang is geweest. Tenslotte worden de werkomstandigheden van de militaire veeartsen belicht aan de hand van enkele ooggetuigenverslagen.

The final chapter ofVanity Fair's account of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo opens with a scene of public panic in the streets of Brussels. As French cannons sound just outside of the Belgian capital, Thackeray captures the chaos that ensues as the English men and women, who have accompanied the army to Brussels and remained in the city during the battle, begin to receive reports that Napoleon's forces have defeated the Duke of Wellington's army and are marching on the city. Rumor reigns in Brussels as the English civilians seek out one another for increasingly inaccurate reports on the French progress towards the city, and civil tranquility collapses as the public consensus becomes that French forces will soon invade.

For Paul SparksFor the most part, the history of the Spanish guitar in eighteenth-century England seems to be no history at all. There appears to be little to place between Samuel Pepys and the beginning of the nineteenth century when the six-string guitar emerged as a favoured instrument of the parlour musician. Thus it is widely supposed that the gut-strung guitar was little used in England until Fernando Sor and other foreign players made it fashionable in the decades after Waterloo (1815). This article proposes to correct that deeply entrenched view with a chronological checklist of material, much of it presented in this connection for the first time, that illuminates the fortunes of the guitar in eighteenth-century England, principally London.

The Final Act of Congress of Vienna was signed on June 9, 1815. More accurately, because of Napoleon's escape and the consequent battle of Waterloo, the Vienna settlement was completed with the signature of the second Treaty of Paris on November 20s 1815. There is thus no doubt that last year marks the 170th anniversary of the settlement. There is equally no doubt that in many ways 1815 has come to seem very remote. There are no great historical arguments in progress about it, nor does it seem to attract any great interest from the students of international relations, unless their attention is actually drawn to it. So it may be as well to remember that the Vienna settlement has generated much more substantial debate at other times. Very soon after its making, it began to be said that the settlement represented a failed attempt to control, at worst, or suppress, at best, the two doctrines that were to be the political foundation of the 19th century: liberalism and nationalism. By the end of the century this attitude had intensified. In any case, the immense social and political changes which were moulding the modern state structure were beginning to create a new kind of international environment in which the ‘unspoken’ as well as deliberate assumptions of 1815 were less relevant. Approved or not, in practical terms, the settlement remained as a basis for the conduct of international politics until 1914, and thus was the obvious point of departure for discussion about the new settlement which would have to be made when the First World War ended. It is not surprising therefore to find that part of the British preparation for the Paris Peace Conference, which were made by the Political Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office, was a study of the Congress of Vienna by C. K. Webster. It is a somewhat routine piece, and his treatment of the subject was much better based and wider ranging in his monumental study of British foreign policy under Lord Castlereagh. It contained, however, one conclusion which may have had an important effect on the way in which the 1919 settlement was arrived at. Webster said that it had been an error on the part of the allies to have permitted the French to be present at Vienna because of the successful attempt by Talleyrand to insert France into the discussions of the other great powers. It has of course been subsequently felt that one of the cardinal respects in which Vienna was more, sensible than Versailles was precisely in that the French were included and became in effect joint guarantors of the agreement. Whether anything fundamental would have been different had the same been done for the Weimar republic is open to question, but there can be no doubt that the circumstances at the time and afterwards would have been greatly easier had the agenda of post-war international politics not had to include the status of Germany as a first item.

Historians usually portray theCongress ofViennain a European frame—and rightly so. The actors and the diplomatic flashpoints spanned the European continent, and the negotiations began before and continued after the Congress. The rulers and statesmen had already started parleying and planning the reconstruction of Europe as they followed behind the armies in the campaigns of 1813–1814, a process that continued while making peace with France in Paris in the spring of 1814, and amid the mixed celebrations and conversations during their visit to London that summer. Even the Congress, successful as it generally was, did not clear all the outstanding issues, which instead carried over into the discussions surrounding the Second Peace of Paris after Napoleon's renewed defeat at Waterloo in 1815 and into the ambassadors' conferences in Paris and London in succeeding years. Yet, there were good reasons why Vienna was selected as the venue for the main round of celebrations and negotiations in autumn 1814, and the location did help shape both the Congress and its diplomatic outcomes. Less often treated as a subject in its own right, however, is the question of what the Vienna Congress meant for and revealed about the history of the Habsburg monarchy, in European context to be sure, but with the focus on Austrian politics and society rather than on their contribution to the European narrative.

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), also known as Napoleon I, was a French military leader and emperor who conquered much of Europe in the early 19th century. Born on the island of Corsica, Napoleon rapidly rose through the ranks of the military during the French Revolution (1789-1799). After seizing political power in France in a 1799 coup d’état, he crowned himself emperor in 1804. Shrewd, ambitious and a skilled military strategist, Napoleon successfully waged war against various coalitions of European nations and expanded his empire. However, after a disastrous French invasion of Russia in 1812, Napoleon abdicated the throne two years later and was exiled to the island of Elba. In 1815, he briefly returned to power in his Hundred Days campaign. After a crushing defeat at the Battle of Waterloo, he abdicated once again and was exiled to the remote island of Saint Helena, where he died at 51.Napoleon was responsible for spreading the values of the French Revolution to other countries, especially in legal reform and the abolition of serfdom. After the fall of Napoleon, not only was the Napoleonic Code retained by conquered countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, parts of Italy and Germany, but has been used as the basis of certain parts of law outside Europe including the Dominican Republic, the US state of Louisiana and the Canadian province of Quebec. The memory of Napoleon in Poland is favorable, for his support for independence and opposition to Russia, his legal code, the abolition of serfdom, and the introduction of modern middle class bureaucracies. The social structure of France changed little under the First Empire. It remained roughly what the Revolution had made it: a great mass of peasants comprising three-fourths of the population—about half of them works owners of their farms or sharecroppers and the other half with too little land for their own subsistence and hiring themselves out as laborers. Industry, stimulated by the war and the blockade of English goods, made remarkable progress in northern and eastern France, whence exports could be sent to central Europe; but it declined in the south and west because of the closing of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The great migrations from rural areas toward industry in the towns began only after 1815. The nobility would probably have declined more swiftly if Napoleon had not restored it, but it could never recover its former privileges. Finally we can say that many of the territories occupied by Napoleon during his Empire began to feel a new sense of nationalism.

AbstractThe nucleus of the collection of paintings in the Mauritshuis around 130 pictures - came from the hereditary stadholder Prince William v. It is widely believed to have become, the property of the State at the beginning of the 19th century, but how this happened is still. unclear. A hand-written notebook on this subject, compiled in 1876 by - the director Jonkheer J. K. L. de Jonge is in the archives of the Mauritshuis Note 4). On this basis a clnsor systematic and chronological investigation has been carried out into the stadholder's. property rights in respect of his collectcons and the changes these underwent between 1795 and 1816. Royal decrees and other documents of the period 1814- 16 in particular giae a clearer picture of whal look place. 0n 18 January 1795 William V (Fig. 2) left the Netherlands and fled to England. On 22 January the Dutch Republic was occupied by French armies. Since France had declared war on the stadholder, the ownership of all his propergy in the Netherlands, passed to France, in accordance with the laws of war of the time. His famous art collections on the Builerth of in. The Hague were taken to Paris, but the remaining art objects, distributed over his various houses, remained in the Netherlands. On 16 May 1795 the French concluded a treaty with the Batavian Republic, recognizing it as an independent power. All the properties of William v in the Netehrlands but not those taken to France, were made over to the Republic (Note 14), which proceeded to sell objects from the collections, at least seven sales taking place until 1798 (Note 15). A plan was then evolved to bring the remaining treasures together in a museum in emulation of the French. On the initiative of J. A. Gogel, the Nationale Konst-Galerij', the first national museum in the .Netherlands, was estahlished in The Hague and opened to the public on ,31 May 1800. Nothing was ever sold from lhe former stadholder's library and in 1798 a Nationale Bibliotheek was founded as well. In 1796, quite soon after the French had carried off the Stadholder, possessions to Paris or made them over to the Batavian Republic, indemnification was already mentioned (Note 19). However, only in the Trealy of Amiens of 180 and a subaequent agreement, between France ararl Prussia of 1 802, in which the Prince of Orarage renounced his and his heirs' rights in the Netherlands, did Prussia provide a certain compensation in the form of l.artds in Weslphalia and Swabia (Note 24) - William v left the management of these areas to the hereditary prince , who had already been involved in the problems oncerning his father's former possessions. In 1804 the Balavian Republic offered a sum of five million guilders 10 plenipotentiaries of the prince as compensation for the sequestrated titles and goods, including furniture, paintings, books and rarities'. This was accepted (Notes 27, 28), but the agreement was never carried out as the Batavian Republic failed to ratify the payment. In the meantime the Nationale Bibliolkeek and the Nationale Konst-Galerij had begun to develop, albeit at first on a small scale. The advent of Louis Napoleon as King of Hollarad in 1806 brought great changes. He made a start on a structured art policy. In 1806 the library, now called `Royal', was moved to the Mauritshuis and in 1808 the collectiorts in The Hague were transferred to Amsterdam, where a Koninklijk Museum was founded, which was housed in the former town hall. This collection was subsequertly to remain in Amsterdam, forming the nucleus of the later Rijksmuseum. The library too was intended to be transferred to Amsterdam, but this never happened and it remained in the Mauritshuis until 1819. Both institutions underwent a great expansion in the period 1806-10, the library's holdings increasing from around 10,000 to over 45,000 books and objects, while the museum acquired a number of paintings, the most important being Rembrandt's Night Watch and Syndics, which were placed in the new museum by the City of Amsterdam in 1808 (Note 44). In 1810 the Netherlands was incorporated into France. In the art field there was now a complete standstill and in 1812 books and in particular prints (around 11,000 of them) were again taken from The Hague to Paris. In November 1813 the French dominion was ended and on 2 December the hereditary prince, William Frederick, was declared sovereign ruler. He was inaugurated as constitutional monarch on 30 March 1814. On January 3rd the provisional council of The Hague had already declared that the city was in (unlawful' possession of a library, a collection of paintings, prints and other objects of art and science and requested the king tot take them back. The war was over and what had been confiscated from William under the laws of war could now be given back, but this never happened. By Royal Decree of 14 January 1814 Mr. ( later Baron) A. J. C. Lampsins (Fig. I ) was commissioned to come to an understanding with the burgomaster of The Hague over this transfer, to bring out a report on the condition of the objects and to formulate a proposal on the measures to be taken (Note 48). On 17 January Lampsins submitted a memorandum on the taking over of the Library as the private property of His Royal Highness the Sovereign of the United Netherlartds'. Although Lampsins was granted the right to bear the title 'Interim Director of the Royal Library' by a Royal Decree of 9 February 1814, William I did not propose to pay The costs himself ; they were to be carried by the Home Office (Note 52). Thus he left the question of ownership undecided. On 18 April Lampsins brought out a detailed report on all the measures to be taken (Appendix IIa ) . His suggestion was that the objects, formerly belonging to the stadholder should be removed from the former royal museum, now the Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam and to return the 'Library', as the collectiort of books, paintings and prints in The Hague was called, to the place where they had been in 1795. Once again the king's reaction was not very clear. Among other things, he said that he wanted to wait until it was known how extensive the restitution of objects from Paris would be and to consider in zvhich scholarly context the collections would best, fit (Note 54) . While the ownership of the former collections of Prince William I was thus left undecided, a ruling had already been enacted in respect of the immovable property. By the Constitution of 1814, which came into effect on 30 March, the king was granted a high income, partly to make up for the losses he had sulfered. A Royal Decree of 22 January 1815 does, however, imply that William had renounced the right to his, father's collections, for he let it be known that he had not only accepted the situation that had developed in the Netherlands since 1795, but also wished it to be continued (Note 62). The restitution of the collections carried off to France could only be considered in its entirety after the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815- This was no simple matter, but in the end most, though not all, of the former possessions of William V were returned to the Netherlands. What was not or could not be recovered then (inc.uding 66 paintings, for example) is still in France today (Note 71)- On 20 November 1815 127 paintings, including Paulus Potter's Young Bull (Fig. 15), made a ceremonial entry into The Hague. But on 6 October, before anything had actually been returned, it had already been stipulated by Royal Decree that the control of the objects would hence forlh be in the hands of the State (Note 72). Thus William I no longer regarded his father's collections as the private property of the House of Orange, but he did retain the right to decide on the fulure destiny of the... painting.s and objects of art and science'. For the time being the paintings were replaced in the Gallery on the Buitenhof, from which they had been removed in 1795 (Note 73). In November 1815 the natural history collection was made the property of Leiden University (Note 74), becoming the basis for the Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie, The print collection, part of the Royal Library in The Hague, was exchanged in May 1816 for the national collectiort of coins and medals, part of the Rijksmuseum. As of 1 Jufy 1816 directors were appointed for four different institutions in The Hague, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (with the Koninklijk Penningkabinet ) , the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Yoninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 80) . From that time these institutions led independenl lives. The king continued to lake a keen interest in them and not merely in respect of collecting Their accommodation in The Hague was already too cramped in 1816. By a Royal Decree of 18 May 1819 the Hotel Huguetan, the former palace of the. crown prince on Lange Voorhout, was earmarked for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (Note 87) . while at the king's behest the Mauritshuis, which had been rented up to then, was bought by the State on 27 March 1820 and on IO July allotted to the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 88). Only the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen is still in the place assigned to it by William and the collection has meanwhile become so identified with its home that it is generally known as the Mauritshui.s'. William i's most important gift was made in July 1816,just after the foundation of the four royal institutions, when he had deposited most of the objects that his father had taken first to England and later to Oranienstein in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden. The rarities (Fig. 17), curios (Fig. 18) and paintings (Fig. 19), remained there (Note 84), while the other art objects were sorted and divided between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the manuscripts and books) and the koninklijk Penningkabinet (the cameos and gems) (Note 85). In 1819 and 182 the king also gave the Koninklijke Bibliotheek an important part of the Nassau Library from the castle at Dillenburg. Clearly he is one of the European monarchs who in the second half of the 18th and the 19th century made their collectiorts accessible to the public, and thus laid the foundatinns of many of today's museums. But William 1 also made purchases on behalf of the institutions he had created. For the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, for example, he had the 'Tweede Historiebijbel', made in Utrecht around 1430, bought in Louvain in 1829 for 1, 134 guilders (Pigs.30,3 I, Note 92). For the Koninkijk Penningkabinet he bought a collection of 62 gems and four cameos , for ,50,000 guilders in 1819. This had belonged to the philosopher Frans Hemsterhuis, the keeper of his father's cabinet of antiquities (Note 95) . The most spectacular acquisition. for the Penninukabinet., however, was a cameo carved in onyx, a late Roman work with the Triumph of Claudius, which the king bought in 1823 for 50,000 guilders, an enormous sum in those days. The Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamhedert also received princely gifts. In 1821- the so-called doll's house of Tzar Peter was bought out of the king's special funds for 2.800 guilders (Figs.33, 34, ,Note 97) , while even in 1838, when no more money was available for art, unnecessary expenditure on luxury' the Von Siebold ethnographical collection was bought at the king's behest for over 55,000 guilders (Note 98). The Koninklijk Kabinel van Schilderyen must have been close to the hearl of the king, who regarded it as an extension of the palace (Notes 99, 100) . The old master paintings he acquzred for it are among the most important in the collection (the modern pictures, not dealt with here, were transferred to the Paviljoen Welgelegen in Haarlem in 1838, Note 104). For instance, in 1820 he bought a portrait of Johan Maurice of Nassau (Fig.35)., while in 1822, against the advice of the then director, he bought Vermeer' s View of Delft for 2,900 guilders (Fig.36, Note 105) and in 1827 it was made known, from Brussels that His Majesty had recommended the purchase of Rogier van der Weyden's Lamentation (Fig.37) . The most spectacular example of the king's love for 'his' museum, however, is the purchase in 1828 of Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp for 32,000 guilders. The director of the Rijksmuseum, C. Apostool, cortsidered this Rembrandt'sfinest painting and had already drawn attention to it in 1817, At the king'.s behest the picture, the purchase of which had been financed in part by the sale of a number of painlings from. the Rijksmuseum, was placed in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen in The Hague. On his accession King William I had left the art objects which had become state propery after being ceded by the French to the Batavian Republic in 1795 as they were. He reclaimed the collections carried off to France as his own property, but it can be deduced from the Royal Decrees of 1815 and 1816 that it Was his wish that they should be made over to the State, including those paintings that form the nucleus of the collection in the Mauritshuis. In addition, in 1816 he handed over many art objects which his father had taken with him into exile. His son, William II, later accepted this, after having the matter investigated (Note 107 and Appendix IV). Thus William I'S munificence proves to have been much more extensive than has ever been realized.

Ireland’s experience of the Waterloo campaign has been consistently under-explored, despite the degree of attention paid to the campaign by historians. This paper shows that that experience was far more significant and multi-faceted than has generally been recognised. Irish people played an important practical role in the events of 1815. Irish soldiers saw service in their thousands during the campaign, at every rank from private to general. These men represented a comprehensive cross-section of contemporary Ireland, coming from every county on the island and from every kind of socio-economic background. Some Irish soldiers and military units earned distinction for their actions on the battlefield and a number of participants from the country left valuable primary testimony. Civilian Irish women and children were also caught up in events in Belgium. Domestically, Ireland was a centre of activity as hostilities against Napoleon developed and analysis of contemporary media coverage and private correspondence makes it clear that ongoing events on the Continent had a keenly engaged Irish audience. Waterloo also left a distinctive legacy for Ireland and for Irish people. This paper explores all of these issues in detail, providing a thorough examination based on primary sources to address the impact of Waterloo on Ireland, and of the Irish on Waterloo.

Avec cet article, on souhaiterait faire le portrait (contextuel, institutionnel, médiatique) de deux acteurs fondamentalement différents, mais qui font de la reconstitution historique un enjeu central de leurs pratiques dès la fin des années 1960 et la rapportent, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, à un même lieu, le champ de bataille de Waterloo, en Belgique francophone : l’artiste bruxellois Marcel Broodthaers (1924–1976) et le commerçant/reconstituteur wallon Norbert Brassine (1907–1988). En plus d’analyser quel rapport à l’histoire et à la reconstitution développent ces deux non-historiens très distincts à travers leurs actions, leurs productions ou leurs apparitions médiatiques, cet article vise aussi à revenir sur une période où la reconstitution historique en était à ses balbutiements à Waterloo, la fin des années 1960. Ce double portrait se propose donc comme une archéologie très localisée des usages et représentations de la reconstitution historique.

AbstractAfter the defeat at the battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte was sent into exile to the Island of St. Helena where he died 6 years later on May 5, 1821. One day after his death, Napoleon’s personal physician, Dr. Francesco Antommarchi, performed the autopsy in the presence of Napoleon’s exile companions and the British medical doctors. Two hundred years later, mysteries still surround the cause of his death and different hypotheses have been postulated in the medical and historical literature. The main reasons seem to be the presence of several autopsy reports, their interpretation and perhaps the greed for thrill and mystery. Therefore, for the bicentenary of Napoleon’s death, an international consortium of gastrointestinal pathologists assembled to analyse Napoleon’s autopsy reports based on the level of medical evidence and to investigate if the autopsy reports really do not allow a final statement.