thanks for the geographical info. When one looks at an arial photo of the region to the east of Antwerp towards Maastricht one can see that it is much wilder than surrounding areas. I would imagine then that the roads through that belt would be commensurate with the population and thus of limited breadth and quality. So communications between an army operating near Antwerp and one operating from Maatricht would not be great if the French were holding Tienen to Mechelen.

I've just had a look at the map at http://www.napoleon-series.org/images/military/maps/holland/antwerp.jpg and see that the work on the other side was MUCH smaller than I had remembered and that there was no bridge of any sort. I had thought that the Tete-de-Flandre was much bigger and suitable for marshalling a force. So, it's good to get that false idea out of my head.

The lack of a bridge at Antwerp does make a manouver by Wavre on Mechelen very serious indeed - more than the inconvenience I had first considered. I had been thinking that Wellington would still be able to retire north through Antwerp via Dendermonde, but I can see that crossing an army at Antwerp would be very time consuming. This gives me a few more things to consider about a manouver via Leuven.

What can you tell us about the fortifications in the region that were in good shape? You know I've got Lowe's report and of course the various items in WD and WSD. I'd be interested to find some particulars about the works that were kept when the Belgian fortifications were slighted (which was after the 1790 rebellion, wasn't it?).

David