Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo caused in part by Indonesian volcanic eruption
Electrically charged volcanic ash short-circuited Earth’s atmosphere in 1815, causing global poor weather and Napoleon’s defeat, says new research.
Historians know that rainy and muddy conditions helped the Allied army defeat the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo. The June 1815 event changed the course of European history.
Two months prior, a volcano named Mount Tambora erupted on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa, killing 100,000 people and plunging the Earth into a ‘year without a summer’ in 1816.
Now, Dr Matthew Genge from Imperial College London has discovered that electrified volcanic ash from eruptions can ‘short-circuit’ the electrical current of the ionosphere – the upper level of the atmosphere that is responsible for cloud formation.
The findings, published today in Geology, could confirm the suggested link between the eruption and Napoleon’s defeat.
Dr Genge, from Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering, suggests that the Tambora eruption short-circuited the ionosphere, ultimately leading to a pulse of cloud formation. This brought heavy rain across Europe that contributed to Napoleon Bonaparte’s defeat.
From History.com
On June 16, 1815, he defeated the Prussians under Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher at Ligny, and sent 33,000 men, or about one-third of his total force, in pursuit of the retreating Prussians. On June 18, Napoleon led his remaining 72,000 troops against the Duke of Wellington’s 68,000-man allied army, which had taken up a strong position 12 miles south of Brussels near the village of Waterloo. In a fatal blunder, Napoleon waited until mid-day to give the command to attack in order to let the ground dry. The delay in fighting gave Blucher’s troops, who had eluded their pursuers, time to march to Waterloo and join the battle by the late afternoon.
The paper shows that eruptions can hurl ash much higher than previously thought into the atmosphere – up to 100 kilometres above ground.
Dr Genge said: “Previously, geologists thought that volcanic ash gets trapped in the lower atmosphere, because volcanic plumes rise buoyantly. My research, however, shows that ash can be shot into the upper atmosphere by electrical forces.”
A series of experiments showed that that electrostatic forces could lift ash far higher than by buoyancy alone. Dr Genge created a model to calculate how far charged volcanic ash could levitate, and found that particles smaller than 0.2 millionths of a metre in diameter could reach the ionosphere during large eruptions.
He said: “Volcanic plumes and ash both can have negative electrical charges and thus the plume repels the ash, propelling it high in the atmosphere. The effect works very much like the way two magnets are pushed away from each other if their poles match.”
The experimental results are consistent with historical records from other eruptions.
Weather records are sparse for 1815, so to test his theory, Dr Genge examined weather records following the 1883 eruption of another Indonesian volcano, Krakatau.
The data showed lower average temperatures and reduced rainfall almost immediately after the eruption began, and global rainfall was lower during the eruption than either period before or after.
He also found reports of ionosphere disturbance after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, which could have been caused by charged ash in the ionosphere from the volcano plume.
In addition, a special cloud type appeared more frequently than usual following the Krakatau eruption. Noctilucent clouds are rare and luminous, and form in the ionosphere. Dr Genge suggests these clouds therefore provide evidence for the electrostatic levitation of ash from large volcanic eruptions.
Dr Genge said:
“Vigo Hugo in the novel Les Miserables said of the Battle of Waterloo: ‘an unseasonably clouded sky sufficed to bring about the collapse of a World.’
Now we are a step closer to understanding Tambora’s part in the Battle from half a world away.”
###
All this talk about whether the weather in Belgium caused Napoleon’s loss, but little about the claim that a volcano in Indonesia caused abnormal rain in Europe. Concerning this claim, color me confused:
“The experimental results are consistent with historical records from other eruptions.
Weather records are sparse for 1815, so to test his theory, Dr Genge examined weather records following the 1883 eruption of another Indonesian volcano, Krakatau.
The data showed lower average temperatures and reduced rainfall almost immediately after the eruption began, and global rainfall was lower during the eruption than either period before or after.”
To confirm his speculation that Tambora’s eruption caused excess rain in Europe, the author cites a decrease in global rainfall concurrent with Krakatau’s eruption??????
SR
OOPS, Willis made this point while I was typing. Had I seen his entry, I would have gone for a morning bike ride, instead.
SR
The mention of “electrostatic levitation” is interesting.
Only a few weeks ago, I read about a very small spider that spins a fine but long thread. And due to electrostatic forces goes “flying”.
Bob Hoye
“Now, Dr Matthew Genge from Imperial College London has discovered that electrified volcanic ash from eruptions can ‘short-circuit’ the electrical current of the ionosphere – the upper level of the atmosphere that is responsible for cloud formation.”
short-circuit the ionosphere? the level responsible for cloud formation?
Here’s the abstract:
collapse of the global electrical circuit on time scales of 102 s?
Because atmospheric electrical potential moderates cloud formation?
large eruptions may have abrupt effects on climate through radiative forcing?
Fantasy science. I’m going back to fantasy post-hoc generaling.
“Vigo Hugo in the novel Les Miserables said of the Battle of Waterloo: ‘an unseasonably clouded sky sufficed to bring about the collapse of a World.’
Victor Hugo…
Vigo Hugo?
Why stop at a science finding when you can rewrite history as a bonus headline writing opportunity.
What a complete load of tosh. I cannot believe this is the sort of BS which “academia” sanctions these days.
Napoleon was beaten at Waterloo by a better general, and British units (mostly English infantry regiments in an Allied Army) who refused to be intimidated by Napoleonic tactics.
Wellington had, about a week before Waterloo (the incident at the Ball in Brussels), determined where he would meet ‘Boney. He knew the ground at Waterloo; he anticipated ‘Boney’s line of march. He had alternatives in mind too, should Napoleon change his line of march.
The Iron Duke (as he subsequently became known) knew the limitations of his Allied army. He knew he would have to fight a battle that did not require manoeuvre. He knew that most of the Allied contingents could not be relied upon to stand against the French columns and artillery (eg the Dutch who broke before the battle even really started). He calculated the risks, and positioned himself to minimise them while at the same time playing the such strengths (mostly British Army strengths of discipline – no army has a monopoly on courage) as he had.
Wellington knew and understood French tactics. He had beaten the Marshals time and again in the Peninsular War. He was the master of using the reverse slope; he made his men lie down under fire; his infantry regimental officers knew that rate and concentration of musketry above all else won battles. Wellington instilled in his officers and men a complete confidence in his tactical foresight, and above all he made them believe they could win.
On the day of the battle, Wellington’s presence in the frontline (he was almost captured by French cavalry on one occasion, dashing into an infantry square at the last moment) and his steadfast refusal to deploy his reserve until he knew the French were exhausted, despite catastrophic losses in some places in the line (the 27th Inniskilling’s suffered 63% casualties in the centre, the men dying in their square), is what won. He refused to reinforce La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont, he was miserly everywhere else.
As Wellington himself reportedly said afterwards “…they came up in the same old way, and we sent them away in the same old way…”. He kept his army in hand (except for the British cavalry, which notoriously could never be kept in hand once it charged), and he timed his counter-attack to perfection. That is what shattered to French – when the saw the Guards crumble under British infantry fire, and then routed by cavalry, they knew they were beaten. Wellington was also gracious enough to honour Napoleon and the French Army by saying it was a “near run thing”. That is a general speaking who knows his own limitations, but also knows he won…
The weather had absolutely FA to do with the result.
Wellington had won Waterloo without the Prussians arriving – they simply turned a victory into a (very useful) rout. Napoleon, who held Wellington in contempt as “the Sepoy general”, had learned (as had his Marshals in Spain and Portugal) India was a proving ground for great general officers (go and look up Assaye and the Mahratta Wars if you doubt that). Sepoys were great soldiers in their own right, worthy of being led by great generals and Wellington is not the only great British general to have learned his trade in India. I digress, but anyone who thinks the contrary should look up the various sub-continental wars of the 19th Century and the magnificent contributions of the Indian Army to the Allied cause in two World Wars.
I’m now really riled up as you can probably tell – but I am sick unto death of pseudo-academics coming up with utter BS, and the great unwashed sucking it all up because they really are too ill-educated to know better. This sort of revisionist BS is the way civilisation falls ultimately. When people who are too thick to be permitted an opinion are allowed to broadcast it for consumption by the rest of the retarded herd….
Have at me now, I care not.
Knock Out,
Only 36% of the troops in the Anglo-Allied army at Waterloo were British (English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish). The rest all spoke one dialect or another of German (Hanoverians, Netherlander, Walloon and Flemish).
Netherlandish-Belgian troops saved the day at Quatres Bras and again at Waterloo. When the line of the British and German infantry was broken there
by Nappy’s Middle Guard, the situation became critical. Wellington ordered General Chasse to bring his Netherland division quickly.
The “Dutch” line held until shot to pieces by overwhelming French musketry and cannon fire. Two militia battalions did break, after witnessing such slaughter, endured by brigades already more than decimated at QB. But the third militia battalion, held in reserve, rallied them to stop the French. Due to his wounds from QB, its commander had himself tied onto his horse rather than go into hospital.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_Cowards.html
Wellington did not win Waterloo without the Prussians. Long before Bluecher arrived, his men were fighting French Guardsmen at Plancenoit. Without Napoleon’s need to divert those elite soldiers to hold off the Prussians, the Emperor’s afternoon attacks would have succeeded, as they almost did without them.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Imperial_Guard_at_Waterloo.htm
Wellington was a good general, often thought to be defensive minded, but he had previously demonstrated the ability to attack as well, in India and Iberia.
However, Napoleon lost because of his own mistakes, including those made before the campaign began. But even if he had beaten the Anglo-Allied and Prussian armies, he was doomed yet again, since the coalition wouldn’t have given up. Austria. Russia and smaller German states would have returned, plus probably Sweden and Denmark, and united with the remnants of the British, Allied and Prussian armies, once more to crush the French.
Not arguing too hard – I wrote in high dudgeon. Either way the outcome had nothing to do with the weather or volcanoes.
Wellington beat Napoleon because he was the better general on the day. He played to his army’s strengths, and minimised the exposure of his Allied forces weaknesses. Longford’s Years of the Sword is still the very best complete work on Wellington. Holmes is good too, but more generic.
The Anglo-Allied army was made up of 26,000 British, who had a core of veteran soldiers; 31,000 Germans which included 5,100 King’s German Legion, who were experienced and highly trained; 12,000 Hanoverians some of whom had received only basic training; 5,450 Brunswickers, who were young and inexperienced, but who had proved their quality at Quatre Bras on 16 June; 7,200 Nassauers, who were again untried and an unknown quality; and finally 15,200 Dutch and Belgian troops, of whom Wellington expected little and suspected their loyalty as many had previously served with the French army. Wellington divided the forces into corps.
based on WD, xii, 486-7 © University of Southampton
By your accounting, that’s ~38% rather than 36% British-Irish.
Yes, Hooky made fewer mistakes than did Nappy at Waterloo and QB. So that means theDuke was the better general during that campaign, despite the Emperor’s having humbugged him at the outset.
As I said, I am not arguing too hard.
You will however also appreciate how the balance of infantry were engaged throughout the day. The main fighting fell on the British and Hanoverians.
The Dutch-Belgian contingents were mostly spared exposure as (with notable exceptions), they were considered unreliable. The British regiments were interspersed along the main line of the ridge to “stiffen” things, ably assisted by the Hanoverians.
This is not to detract from the fact that the army was an Allied army and the British units made up only around a third of it. All units engaged (even those Dutch/Belgian units which broke quite early and were pulled back to regroup) fought well.
The way he approached dispositions is another example of Wellington’s capabilities – he knew how to fight with European Allies eg from Portugal and Spain. He knew how to get the best out of both his British regiments and his Allies. He knew who to protect as far as possible and who could take the pounding.
Napoleon is on balance probably the greatest general Europe saw post-Renaissance and before WW2. I suspect he would have fitted right in, intellectually speaking, with the likes of Manstein, Rommel and Guderian.
He was better than the great French Marshals of the late 17th and early-mid 18th century like Turenne, Louis (‘Le Grande Conde”), de Saxe and Louis (Duc de Vendome), and Marlborough or Eugene. He trumps Wallenstein or King Gustav Adolph Wasa of the early/mid-17th Century.
It’s uncontroversial that few could move armies like Napoleon did. His Austerlitz campaign is brilliant, as was that before Marengo and the Jena/Auerstadt campaign. March divided fight united taken to a new level. But it is also forgotten that Wellington was a master of strategic manoeuvre and logistics. And very patient.
In the end, they were a two well-matched generals on the day – Wellington’s gambles paid off, Boney’s didn’t. Wellington himself acknowledged that by saying it was a “near run thing”.
Whatever you might think, a blasted volcano in Indonesia had precisely nothing to do with the outcome – the idiot who came up with this paper should have his funding withdrawn. That’d stop him spewing nonsense.
This is complete rot. Napoleon lost at Waterloo because he was a serial loser.
Not content with his catastrophic losses in Egypt (a mere 15,000 French troops killed in action and 15,000 by disease), he then attacked the Iberian peninsula and managed to lose several hundred thousand troops. While that was going on, he simultaneously decided to invade Russia (no doubt deluding himself that he would be welcomed with garlands, rose petals and hot Russian women!) That debacle cost France 210,000 dead, 150,000 wounded, and 50,000 deserted.
So Waterloo with his 41,000 casualties must have seemed like a walk in the park – except that he only fielded 71,000 troops in the first place. And 41/72 = 58% – is not a good casualty rate.
And yet he is still highly regarded in some circles! Wonders never cease.
So it was a volcano that triggered the sale of sovereign lands by the French with pressure by budget analysts and recorded as the Louisiana Purchase?
It’s plausible. Negative space charge will decrease the repulsion between negatively charged droplets, and this might produce an episode of rain, but a whole season? Possibly. Can anybody point to a site where space charge at altitude is measured regularly, as for example by weather balloons? This might be important.
“global rainfall was lower during the eruption than either period before or after“. So the rain after the eruption was caused by the eruption, and the rain before the eruption was caused by ….. ???
Besides which, the eruption was still going on in June, although not as explosively as in April.
So, globally at least, if not locally, rainfall should have been lower then.
In any case, rain in France and Belgium in June isn’t unusual. However the rainstorm of June 17 and the morning of the 18th brought an unusually heavy downpour.
https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-battle-of-waterloo-did-weather.html
The article by Dennis Wheeler and Gaston Demarée, “The weather of the Waterloo campaign 16 to 18 1815,” cites passages from those who had firsthand experience in the battle.
An excerpt from a letter written by Private William Wheeler of the 51st Kings Infantry reads, “…[a]nd as it began to rain the road soon became very heavy…the rain increased, the thunder and lightning approached nearer, and with it came the enemy…the rain beating with violence, the guns roaring, repeated bright flashes of lightning attended with tremendous volleys of Thunder that shook the very earth…”
Private John Lewis of the 95th Rifles wrote, “…[t]he rain fell so hard that the oldest soldiers there never saw the like…”
Napoleon planned his attack for 8 A.M., but some experts believe it was closer to eleven that he struck. Besides the wet ground slowing the progress of Napoleon’s heavy artillery, one must consider that cannon shot was meant to fall short of the target and skip along the ground to do the most damage. Under muddy conditions, the effectiveness of the weapon was compromised. The cavalry could not easily move forward. Captain Cotter of the South Lincolnshire regiment spoke of, “…[m]ud through which we sank more than ankle deep….” The cavalry’s charge was slowed from a gallop to a canter. A mist rose and mixed with gun smoke. Winds, however, did not sweep away the “veritable fog of war.”
The French infantry at last heading for the Anglo-Dutch lines crossed through fields of wet rye. Muskets and rifles which had been loaded before the march would no doubt have misfired because of damp powder. Napoleon’s assault would have suffered more than Wellington’s defensive lines under such conditions.
Did the volcano/weather cause Napoleon’s defeat or drive Wellington and the Allies’ victory?
Same event, same outcome, different narrative.
I am a bit confused. Because of a dearth of weather records in 1815 (Tambora) the authors used Krakatau (1883) as a surrogate. But, the evidence shows less rain around the time of the Krakatau eruption, not more rain. Tambora erupted in mid April and Waterloo was fought in mid June – two months apart.
A humorous take on all this.
(A volcano is not mentioned.)
From here: https://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
The Albigensians weren’t French yet. And the people of what is now southern France wouldn’t be for centuries. They spoke dialects of Occitan, related to Catalan, not French.
St. Bernadette of Loudres was thought stupid at school, but her problems stemmed from her speaking the Gascon dialect of Occitan, not French.
France had success under Louis XIV, despite John Churchill and Eugene of Savoy.
And France won the 100 Years’ War not just because of the cross-dressing, teenaged girl schizophrenic, but because of its advances in artillery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bureau
It also didn’t help that English King Henry VI inherited the madness of his French king grandfather.
Wow that’s worse then the Detroit Lions, I guess there is a French connection there too
Better than the all time win loss record of the NO Saints.
I went on a tour of the Tower of London and the Yeoman Warder’s patter included ‘anyone here from France? Put both hands up so we can recognise you!’
Classic false science red herrings.
A) Speculate about Tambora’s eruption effects on Belgium’s weather.
B) Use speculation about Krakatau as support for their Tambora’s speculative eruption effects on Belgium’s weather.
C) Include assumptions about Pinatubo’s eruption.
D) Ignore Napoleon’s illness contribution towards Waterloo battle errors.
E) Ignore Napoleon’s commanders’ poor choices towards battlefield mistakes:
– i) e.g., the Cavalry charge without infantry support
– ii) e.g. 2, Napoleon’s troops chasing von Blucher wilfully failing to “march to the sound of the guns”.
Not to forget:
1) The Coalition Alliance aggressively did not allow Napoleon time to organize and conquer countries one by one.
2) Napoleon escapes Elba in March 1815, Wellington and Coalition forces engage Napoleon at Waterloo on June 18th, 1815.
3) Wellington’s soldiers were well trained.
4) Napoleon’s troops were rushed, poorly trained, and not a unified coordinated fighting force.
5) Wellington’s commanders and troops made effective selections for battlefield position and preparation.
6) Von Blucher’s “marching to the sound of the guns” and timely reinforcing Coalition Alliance troops and positions.
7) Virtually the entire world learned Napoleon’s tactics and use of artillery during Napoleon’s earlier campaigns.
Ignored in most Waterloo discussions, that while France was willing to follow Napoleon, Napoleon was not the confident decisive commanding leader he used to be.
A) Perhaps, lurking at the back of Napoleon’s mind was the defeats these same countries inflicted on Napoleon before sending Napoleon into exile.
a) Ignoring the tendency for horses to whinny in fear when von Blucher’s name is mentioned. (Young Frankenstein). Von Blucher was not known for treating horses well.
The French also mistreated horses. Their cavalry stank as a result.
So did the British, but in a different way, by bobbing their tails, which in Spain they needed to flick flies.
If you haven’t watched “Young Frankenstein”, watch it!
Apparently, von Blucher was well known for abusing horses, hence the inclusion into Young Frankenstein as a history footnote in a Mel Blanc comedy.
I saw it when it came out. Many great scenes.
If Bluecher sexually abused mares (presumably), he wasn’t the only Prussian to do so. I doubt that he did, but one Prussian trooper definitely did.
IIRC, the bestiality-practicing cavalryman was sentenced to death, but homosexual King Frederick the Great pardoned him. You might want to check up on this, since my memory is fading rapidly.
I also don’t know if the tale (!) of Catherine the Great’s equine love-related accidental demise be apocryphal or not.
According to Brooks (via Snopes), the reference is neither to the Prussian general or German word for “glue”, as pop wisdom has asserted:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/frau-blucher-horses/
Waterloo 20 June 1815
At last after he had left the town, he found in a little meadow on the right a small bivouac fire made by some soldiers. He stopped by it to warm himself and said to General Corbineau,
“Et bien Monsieur, we have done a fine thing.”
General Corbineau saluted him and replied,
“Sire, it is the utter ruin of France.”
Jardin Ainé; Equerry to the Emperor Napoleon
It was a fair fight, and we spanked them. End of.
“We” being British, Irish, Prussian, Netherlandish (including Belgian), Hanoverian, Nassauaer, Brunswicker, etc? The British, even broadly defined, constituted a small portion of the two armies which beat Napoleon.
Not to mention Wellington’s French-American chief of staff. A famous street on Manhattan honors his Tory family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howe_De_Lancey
Named in honor of the British general occupying NYC until April 1778 (despite having resigned the previous year after the disaster for Britain of Saratoga).
“Vigo Hugo”? Who’s that? I know of literature by Victor Hugo. On the other hand, Terre Haute, IN, is in Vigo County.
Ironically, guys like former CIA Director Brennan want more of that year-without-a-summer insanity. in June 2016, on the 200th anniversary of that dreary, Frankenstein summer, Brennan praised efforts like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) for cooling down the planet “like volcanoes do.”
Brennan is not known for his intelligence, though he did head an “intelligence” agency. Perhaps he already knows that we live in an Ice Age and that history shows that cooling typically leads to famines and societal collapses — like the Greek Dark Ages (1100-800 BC), the Medieval (post-Roman) Dark Ages (500-850 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1350-1850 AD).
Missing the woods for the trees here?? The subject is the volcano, Napoleon was collateral damage.
Funny. If volcanic ash did Napoleaon in in 1815 or 16 – whatever- when there were no coal burning boilers, is it different but achieving similar results now after hundred plus years of coal burning power plants worldwide? Something to think about.