Awoke slightly after the rooster, raring to go. I stayed long enough to post pictures on the blog, then down the road as the song says, "makin' time, 'scoobie-doobie', makin' time" (or something like that).
Certainly is beautiful country; all rolling farmland, covered in wheat and hay mostly, with the occasional corn field thrown in for good measure. I expect, at any moment, to see Van Gogh or Junior Samples stand up in a cornfield, holding a sign saying 'For Sale,' painting or used car, take your pick; "I need the money."
Then you start seeing the road signs speaking to names you've heard for most of your life: Somme, Amiens, Mons; each convoking thoughts of massive formations of men, animals, and guns...especially guns. What began with the American Civil War, the effects of modern transportation and technology on the capability to wage war, was expanded here, between 1914 and 1918, to the point where movement of strategic consequence became impossible. They just stopped; and like two brutes in a 19th century prize-ring, pummeled each other to total exhaustion. But not the fighters, the fighters were still "toeing the line," still answering the bell. The support systems behind them gave out first, a testament to the stamina, bravery...and heart...of the troops.
The support systems gave out first because the military they supported became so bloody good at consuming the requirements of war the population couldn't keep up. The best example is the fact that German commanders had to plan their offenses very carefully in terms of artillery barrages, because three days of shelling could consume thirty days of manufacturing capacity. And it's a very bad thing to run out of ammo during a gunfight...any Texan can tell you that.
So, with that new upstart, America, entering the game, the German "brute" flinched first, and an armistice was effected, leaving it to the next generation to carry the evolution of modern war to it's inevitable conclusion: Shanghai, Stalingrad, Dresden, and Hiroshima. Wonder if we've learned anything? I don't think much.
East of Amiens, France
The inevitable church. Farmers have a special call on God. One weeks it's "Lord, make it rain...please, make it rain." The next weeks it's, "Lord, please stop the rain...please. Any more and I'm ruined."
"And Lord, please forgive me for working on Sunday."
But that crop's just got to get in."
"Okay, that's it for you. Take it to the elevator. I'll go get some more."
Lion's Mound at Waterloo
Many, evidently including Wellington, would argue that "they've destroyed my battlefield." Another argument is they just piled it up in one place.
The argument stems from the razing of the actual battlefield to build the monument to the allied victory. The folks in those days are singularly noted for their irreverence to everything but God; and only God when they thought he was listening. The erection of a monument to the victory was just, oh so much more important than retaining the actual terrain of the great battle. Battle_of_Waterloo
This will give you a perspective of why your intrepid reporter didn't have pictures of the entire battlefield from the top of the monument. I'd have to pack a three-day lunch to get up that thing.
This is "behind" the monument ground. It is, I think, the remnants of the Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment behind which Wellington, as in every battle he fought, kept his reserves unseen on the battlefield.
In this direction Hougoumont, one of the two fortified advance positions of Wellington.
On the other side, the other fortified forward position, Papelotte. Papelotte would change hands five times during the battle. It is from the left here that Bülow's IV corp entered the battle, taking Papelotte for the final time, and breaking Napoleon's back.
Today they are just fields...and tourist attractions. But on one day in 1815 the world changed here...on this spot.
Since this battle was so important, the outcome so world-changing, historians and military experts have argued for 194 years as to why it turned out as it did. The general consensus is Napoleon was the better commander, both strategically and tactically. I would certainly agree with that. The latest analysis I've heard is that Napoleon was suffering from a horrendous hemorrhoid attack. As funny as that sounds, I don't know if it's true, or not. But I do believe he was not "himself" during this battle. But, with all that, I think he just got "out-lucked." Grouchy followed orders and attacked Bülow's rearguard at Wavre, ignoring a sub-ordinate's militarily-correct plea to move "to the sound of the guns." Ney did what any good tactical commander would do when he perceived a weakness in the enemy, he attacked him. Unfortunately, he was wrong; the movement was the movement of wounded from the battlefield, not the beginning of a retreat, as he thought. But I can guarantee you George Patton, Robert E. Lee, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, the most offensively oriented commanders I've ever heard of, would have done the same thing; probably quicker.
Some errors are tactical, some strategic. Ney's was a tactical error. It did not "lose" the battle. Grouchy's failure to prevent Bülow's army from joining the battle is oh, so big strategically. Patton is famous for noting that a battle plan goes "out the window" with the first shot. Grouchy should have marched to the sound of the guns. My personal belief is that his failure to do so cost Napoleon this battle. But, in the final analysis, would the world have changed much if the outcome had been different? I think very little, and not for long. The allies would have formed another coalition and gone after him again, and again, and again. Why? Because of the bigger strategy. Because they could not allow the French revolution to stand, even with an Emperor at its head. Three years earlier the English and the American went at it again, with the same result as before. The French and the Americans were a threat to all monarchies, as they proved historically to be. They could not be allowed to continue. The monarchies won this battle, but, eventually, lost the war.
Stopping at Bastogne tomorrow. It's about 90 miles from here. After that I better be making some time, or I'm going to have to go on extended leave of absence to complete this trip. I don't think that would go over very well. Although, come to think of it, the boss has asked me a couple of times if I was coming back. Now I have to wonder, was he concerned about the possibly of me not coming back...or was he concerned about me coming back? "Hmmmmm???? I got to think on that, Amos." (Spencer Williams to Alvin Childress) --- [Okay folks...what's this in reference to?---and shame on you if you have to use the internet.]
Amos and Andy!!
ReplyDeleteI knew I could count on you to get that one. That was a great show.
ReplyDelete