Dear Chrissy,

Now there's a question! There is no substitute for viewing the ground for yourself as I repeatedly stressed in my guidebook on the subject so I'm very pleased to hear you're planning to visit. If you are new to the subject, guided tours can be invaluable and The Cultural Experience, Coopers and Leger are among the best. Mind you, doing it yourself allows you to plan your own itinerary and is a lot cheaper!

Wellington was far more mobile than Napoleon during the battle and often rode up and down his ridge in order to gain better views of events as they developed. However, during the incident you refer to, he is likely to have been in the region of the crossroads under his famous elm tree. Indeed, he repeatedly returned here as it lies roughly in the centre of the Allied ridge and provided a generally good view of 'most' of the battlefield.

I believe he was able to see parts of the French ridge from this point although some areas were probably more obscured then than is the case today. For example, the woods before Hougoumont and the orchard before La Haye Sainte may have been a problem. Since they are now gone, we cannot know for sure how much of a problem they presented to him though. Also remember that Wellington would have been mounted, which makes a surprising difference when viewing a battlefield from what I'm told. The late great Richard Holmes believed in viewing a battlefield from horseback as the increase in height can make a difference and it was exactly the way most commanders' saw things.

To further complicate matters, we do not know how much smoke from the Grand Battery would have obscured his view, even though they would have stopped firing when charged. If there was a breeze, this may have dissipated fairly quickly but there were a lot of guns that had been firing repeatedly so this may not have been the case. Once again, we can't be sure how much this would have blocked his view but Wellington did comment that many paintings of the battle over emphasised the effect of black powder smoke so take from that what you will.

Another factor is the height of the crops, which we can again only estimate but may have been 4-6ft tall in some areas. Most crops grown at the time were taller versions than the varieties grown today as farmers used the longer stalks for animal fodder - very relevant with a population reliant on the horse for travel. Would this have obscured events or was it quickly trampled down by the grand battery, the advance of d'Erlon's Corps and other attacks? As a former battlefield guide, I can tell you that such factors are debated endlessly by the experts and we'll never come to a definitive conclusion.

In my view, using a telescope and mounted on his trusty Copenhagen, Wellington would probably have been able to pick out parts of the opposing ridge from various points along his own ridgeline. The movement of large bodies of cavalry must have been detectable to a large extent, although there is considerable dead ground at Waterloo caused by undulations of the land on the Allied left especially (another reason for seeing the battlefield for yourself) However, some parts of the French ridge must have been obscured to an extent by the combination of the factors listed above. Does that sound non-committal as an answer? Well, I hope it is a practical answer that takes all these considerations into account.

I'm sure you've consulted numerous books on the subject but recommend Uffindell, Andrew and Corum, Michael, On the Fields of Glory, Adkin, Mark, The Waterloo Companion, Barbero, Alessandro, The Battle, Weller, Jac, Wellington at Waterloo and (ahem) my own Buttery, David, Waterloo Battlefield Guide (Second Edition), Pen & Sword Books, 2018.

I hope this helps. Have a great time when you visit Waterloo!

Regards,

David

.