Napoleonic Action in Spain using Battle Command

Battle Command is a relatively new (released in January) evolution in the world of Picquet. Closely related to Field of Battle by Brent Oman, it is even more of an evolution of the classic Picquet system. We decided to put it to the test and gathered some forces for a fictitious battle set in Spain in 1809. 

The scenario was planned as a meeting engagement between British / Portuguese troops under LtGen Wellesley and French, Polish, and German forces under Marshal Soult. Both sides had seven brigades in total and the march order onto the table had to be planned beforehand. After rolling for each leader and unit (and then labeling), I had roughly an hour and a half of invested preparation time. Both Wellesley and Soult had high leadership rolls (both a D12) and the troops on both sides ranged from Raw to Crack. There were even a couple of British Foot Guard units on the table. The French had a numbers advantage, but the British had a quality advantage. We allowed two brigades on each side of the table to be deployed. After rolling for Morale Chips (French 29, British 24), we were ready to go. 

In characteristic fashion, the French outmarched the British, and as this was a meeting engagement, the ability to get the French into position was critical. The British stumbled with movement the first couple of turns. This allowed the French to take possession of the center town at the pivotal crossroads. It also allowed the French to deploy a couple batteries into position to begin bombarding the British columns as they advanced. 

One by one, each side’s brigades entered the table. The British under Mackenzie was able to advance and deploy onto the overlooking ridge that dominated the table. Sarrut’s brigade, made up of Nassauers and Badeners advanced to attack the ridge. At this point, it was obvious that the French were targeting the British artillery that was struggling to get into firing position; two entire batteries were lost. On the French right flank, the British cavalry under Cotton had gotten off to a bad start and was uncharacteristically inept in its movements. Meanwhile, French cavalry maneuvered from the right flank into the center to keep the clumsy British advance further disrupted. 

Mackenzie’s British on the ridge were able to throw back the German troops, but the brigade’s battery was destroyed in the process. With the arrival of the French cavalry, Mackenzie fell back to regroup. Both sides suffered a few routing units, but the French were slowly grinding the British, as Morale Chips were being lost at an alarming rate. 

Both sides suffered from traffic jams, as arriving brigades struggled to get to the front line. Finally, the British cavalry recovered their sluggishness and moved to attack the French infantry near the town. Unfortunately, for the Anglo cavalry, a French battery was able to escape in the nick of time, while French infantry formed square amidst the vineyards, effectively blocking the British cavalry attack. 

French cavalry closed against the British infantry at the bottom of the ridge. British musketry were able to repel the Chasseurs and Hussars, but the 13th Cuirassiers charged and broke some British infantry caught in March Column, as the British squared up around them.

As the Morale Chips fell on both sides, the British were able to knock the French out of the center town, but were immediately counterattacked and thrown out themselves. The British were down to zero chips at this point to the French 8, and the battle was called (didn’t wait for an Army Morale Card). The French did suffer significant casualties as well, but held their ground admirably, winning a Minor Victory. The British fell back to lick their wounds. 

So how did the rules work?  First off, we had a great time and the game definitely told a story. With the new Action Matrix, the decisions that needed to be made were ample and provided a challenging context.  One of the criticisms of Classic Picquet was that “the cards dictated the game and no decision-making or planning was necessary.” With Battle Command, nothing could be further from the truth. At no point did either of us feel that we weren’t in control; the card deck merely presented the situations that we had to think through. The constant interaction between Initiative and Reactive sides provided a fast-moving game that flowed well and kept our attention throughout. Also, because the maximum cards that can be drawn is now 2, there were no longer any periods in which one side or the other went on an extended roll, while the other side sat there while being outmaneuvered. 

We both gave the rule and the experience two solid thumbs up ! 

We did draft some house rules that would satisfy our views of Napoleonic warfare, but these were minor and just added to the experience. Specific areas were infantry moving in line vs column, no “first fire” for units in skirmish order, artillery prolong moves, artillery bouncethrough, and a couple of others. 

I probably put a bit too much restrictive terrain on the table, which severely hurt the British after the French “got the jump” and forced the Brits to attack a tough defensive position. 

I’ll be setting up a new scenario with the British deployed on the ridge and the French attacking (in other words, a classic Peninsular War scenario) using the same orders of battle and modified terrain. I can’t wait !

Picquet: What’s it All About ?

In the world of historical wargaming, the Picquet family of rules seems to be on the fringe of an already niche hobby. Picquet has its raving fans, as well as its detractors who positively hate it. I personally am not an experienced veteran of the system, but I have played in several games, at least enough to formulate an opinion. 

Picquet is a gaming system which is based on the underlying foundation of fog of war. Each side has its own sequence card deck that can be based on leadership or national military philosophy (for example. Imperial Romans and Germanic warriors have very different decks). Each unit and leader is meticulously rolled for in the areas of Firing, Combat, and Morale (in the Classic Picquet system - see below). The game then begins with a roll-off to determine how active one side is and for how long. I won’t go into nitty-gritty details, but turning cards to see what units can do and then actually executing these actions per unit burns up these actions. When the actions are completed, another roll-off determines the next set of actions. At the end of a total number of actions (20 in Classic PK), the turn ends and the card decks reshuffle and a new turn begins. 

Fans of the systems say that the games play like a story and that the fog of war provides true realism when it comes to control of the flow of battle. Detractors state that the cards dictate the game and too little control is left to the players. In addition, the biggest criticism is that one side can continue rolling for actions at the expense of the other side. In theory, the turns should balance out, giving each side equal opportunity to make their moves. In reality, these “swings” can happen. 

The Picquet family is further split into the afore-mentioned “Classic PK” (originated by Bob Jones) and what I’ll call “evolved PK” under the ownership of Brent Oman. “Classic PK” has master rules and separate period rules for more grit and flavor. The period rules like Hallowed Ground (ACW), Archon (Ancients/Medieval), and Les Grognards ( Napoleonic Wars) are just a few examples that cover almost every period in history. Field of Battle (covering the horse and musket period and a WW2 version), Pulse of Battle (covering the Ancients period), and Din of Battle (covering colonial actions) are rules based on the principles of “Classic PK,” but the criticisms of that system have been addressed. No longer does one side go on an extended streak of actions while his opponent sits there idly as his army is destroyed before his eyes. The initial rolls dictate the number of impulses for both sides in an alternating fashion. There is now more decisions to be made with each card that puts the wargamer in the driving seat. The cards provide a context; the original concepts of the cards providing a “storyline” and fog of war remain, but the gamer is now in control of how to use the cards. This “evolved PK” has been refined even further with release of Battle Command. My initial reaction to these rules is that it’s an even more refined and improved version of Field of Battle. I’m excited to play my first game this weekend. 

So, in summary, Picquet has a reputation among wargamers. Some love it, some hate it. But I really think there’s a brilliance lurking in the system that many rules do not contain. I think Classic PK is more suited to 1-2 players of like-mindedness; it is especially entertaining as a solitaire platform. I do think that the series of rules under the leadership of Brent Oman are improved versions of the classic system. I highly recommend the Field of Battle family of rules for solitaire or group games. I do think the many detractors of the “Classic PK” series would be mildly surprised at the improvements. Give them a try and join me in traveling down this path. 

Comparison: Republic To Empire vs General de Brigade

 Republic To Empire vs General de Brigade

Today’s comparison is a tough one. I’m a fan of both systems, for different reasons. They both share a common figure ratio (20:1) and both originated in the UK. Republic To Empire was originally written for a 28mm scale, but can be easily modified for smaller figure scales. 

1. Table appearance (do the unit sizes and organization look like a battle?  Both systems utilize a 20:1 scale with detached Skirmisher bases. Guns are scaled as 2 tubes per model base. Both look great on the table with nice, beefy units. A total Draw here. 

2. Command and Control (Is C/C challenging and realistic?) General de Brigade utilizes an easy and straight-forward method of changing orders. It is very effective and a streamlined portion of the rules. Republic To Empire actually sports one of the most interesting command /control mechanisms I’ve ever seen. Command points are rolled for based on commander rating. Individual brigade orders are tied to the brigade commander quality and have varying command point costs every turn. To maintain an order, these points must be used first, then orders may be changed with left-over points. Finally, if a unit executes an action apart or different from the rest of the brigade, it must be paid for. In addition, charges must be paid for at the end of the turn. It sounds a bit complicated, but works very well. A tremendous amount of thought must go into the command phase. Although General de Brigade’s system is smooth and effective, I have to give the edge to Republic To Empire. It is refreshingly different !

3. Flow of the turn (Is it clunky or smoothly elegant?) Both rules are similar in that they are tactically gritty with multiple morale checks for units throughout the turn. Charges are similar mechanically. I do think General de Brigade has a bit smoother flow to it, so GdB has a slight edge.

4. Mechanics (Are the mechanics easy to pick up? Do the mechanics have enough detail? Do the mechanics slow the battle down?)

Both systems are tactical games with a lot of detail. Both rules can bog down in detail amid frequent rules look-ups. It’s a Draw here. Those who are drawn to grit and detail will love both systems. 

5. Historic results (Do the results seem realistic? Are there wild swings of outcomes?) Both rules pride themselves on realism. General de Brigade typically uses a 2d6 system for firing and melee, while Republic To Empire uses more of a bucket approach which is modified by the tactical situation. It is much more effective than, say, Black Powder’s bucket approach. Both systems work well with how they approach results. Another Draw…..huh oh, I’m seeing a pattern here. 

6. Historic tactics (Do historic tactics work? Does the system reward the use of historic tactics?) Since both systems feature very detailed tactics, abstraction of anything is hard to find anywhere. Even massed columns possibly colliding are covered in General de Brigade. I have to say that both systems excel in this area. Yet another Draw. 

7. Morale (Does morale feel right on the unit or brigade/divisional level?) Both systems feature multiple morale checks on a unit level. General de Brigade does go a bit further with Brigade morale checks. Players who hate multiple dice rolls for one result will be frustrated by both systems, as no “morale” stone is left unturned. General de Brigade is a bit smoother and less clunky in this area, so gets a slight nod.

8. Playability (Do the rules provide for a fun game, or is it mired in too much detail, etc) If you like tactical games, you will love both systems. General de Brigade is a bit more straight-forward, and Republic To Empire takes a little longer to master, but frankly both rules are exceptionally playable. Another Draw.

9. Ease of setup (what does pre-scenario work look like? Is figure basing too specific? Do the rules require very specific basing?) As for pre-game preparation, both rules are similar. General de Brigade though, is much less flexible in the area of basing. Skirmish companies must be accounted for in the unit by figure. To be honest, it’s a bit frustrating with any collection that may be based for other rules. Republic To Empire is definitely more flexible in this area and gets the win.

10. End of battle (Do the rules give results that can be useful if conducting a campaign? Are Victory objectives taken account? Is Victory defined by the rules?) Victory objectives are scenario specific and must be planned for. Both rules are not meant for tournament play, although General de Brigade does have a detailed points system and terrain placement system for pick up games. Neither system has a post-battle system for use in campaigns, so house rules are required. I would give this area a close Draw for both. 

In summary, each system wins in two areas, and result in Draws for every other area. I know, not fair ! I honestly can’t commit either way. Republic To Empire’s command and control system is incredibly cool, but General de Brigade is smooth, elegant, tried and true. Both are very similar when it comes to scale, mechanics, and playability. I guess my advice is…….play both !

Comparison: Empire vs From Valmy To Waterloo (FVTW)

 Empire vs From Valmy To Waterloo

Today is a comparison between 2 “old school” Napoleonic rules. Both caused a stir back in the 80s and 90’s, although Empire has a larger following overall. Both rules systems are aimed primarily at a simulation and are extremely chart-heavy and packed with detail. I personally invested a ton of time with both systems in the past, but prefer less complicated rules now.

1. Table appearance (do the unit sizes and organization look like a battle?) Both systems have a similar basing system, although FVTW has a separate option based on the Napoleon’s Battles rules. Both look similar on the tabletop. I personally prefer beefier looking units. So a Draw here.

2. Command and Control (Is C/C challenging and realistic?) Both systems are very complex when it comes to Command and Control. C/C is obviously critical to both games. Although both systems are very complex, Empire is a bit easier to understand. FVTW is so detailed in this area, it’s still hard to digest after all of these years. Empire has the edge here; very detailed but a bit more workable. 

3. Flow of the turn (Is it clunky or smoothly elegant?) Empire features the Time Telescoping Concept for grand-tactical movement while tactical movement is still going on. I always found it a bit clunky though, especially since each Maneuver Element rolls to see how many tactical turns they are active. FVTW uses a cheat sheet book that matches the turn sequence. FVTW definitely has a more streamlined turn sequence, so it gets the nod in this area. 

4. Mechanics (Are the mechanics easy to pick up? Do the mechanics have enough detail? Do the mechanics slow the battle down?) The mechanics of both are very complex, especially when compared with modern rules. Both rules systems sport a huge amount of detail. I will say that Empire forces players to move and fire skirmish companies, whereas the Skirmishers are ingrained in Fire Discipline in FVTW. There is much more math when playing Empire, as Fire results are calculated per figure. There is an effort with FVTW to streamline this process, while keeping as much detail as possible. FVTW gets the win in this area.

5. Historic results (Do the results seem realistic? Are there wild swings of outcomes?) Both systems pride themselves on recreating historical outcomes. Both rules do a great job in this area. This is a Draw. 

6. Historic tactics (Do historic tactics work? Does the system reward the use of historic tactics?) Again, both systems excel in this area. FVTW explains tactical philosophy in a more clear way, empathizing the Napoleonic impulse system. But frankly, both systems have done their homework and this a strong area of both rules. The artillery rules in FVTW are especially some of the finest ever written, emphasizing the beaten zone of a bombardment. Again, a Draw is in order.

7. Morale (Does morale feel right on the unit or brigade/divisional level?) Again, both systems feature realistic morale outcomes for units, and higher formations. Another easy Draw.

8. Playability (Do the rules provide for a fun game, or is it mired in too much detail, etc) Both systems suffer from overly complex detail. Modern gamers run away screaming when taking a peek at both systems’ charts. Although FVTW packs a bit more detail into the charts, the turn sequence is smoother than Empire and actually plays a bit faster. FVTW has the slight edge here.

9. Ease of setup (what does pre-scenario work look like? Is figure basing too specific? Do the rules require very specific basing?) Both rules are scenario-based and do not feature a points system for units. Both systems have exhaustive addendums for leader and unit ratings that make them extremely valuable to have even if not playing. A Draw.

10. End of battle (Do the rules give results that can be useful if conducting a campaign? Are Victory objectives taken account? Is Victory defined by the rules?) Neither system really discusses the post-Battle results or Victory conditions. Because both are geared for researched scenario play, it’s up to the scenario designer to establish victory conditions. A Draw. 

Both Empire and From Valmy To Waterloo have reputations for intricate and complex detail. Both systems still have many fans. In our comparison, FVTW won 3 categories and Empire won 1. In the other 6 categories, the results were about even. I cut my teeth on Empire when I was a young Wargamer, but was exposed to FVTW by the rules author, William Keyser, and was hooked. From Valmy To Waterloo was an evolution of the principles laid out by Empire. Both systems are legendary and are important cornerstones of Napoleonic wargaming.

Spring 1809 Napoleonic action Part two

Mid-way thru the battle and the French are in attack position. At that moment, disaster struck. A 3lb Grenz battery rolled a 12 on 2d6, the result of which was the immediate death of the leading French brigade, GdB Leisure. The following turn, three French brigades (including Colbert's cavalry, became Hesitant. At least Leisure's brigade rallied from Falter. This proved to considerably slow the French advance down. Coehorn's brigade continued to push on the Austrian right, forcing one Austrian unit to Retreat, and then suffering the same fate from an Austrian counterattack. French columns were snaking around the woods to the right as well. Still, French casualties were moderately heavy on this flank. On the Austrian left flank, the O'Reilly Chevaulegers took advantage of the French heaitation and promptly attacked, routing a unit of Hussars and throwing the French cavalry into Falter. Finally, by the beginning of Turn 8, French infantry was advancing to the attack onto the center town. The defenders belched musketry from the buildings in defiance of the approaching columns. Unfortunately though, Colbert's cavalry brigade fell back in Sauve qui Peut! This was an inopportune time to open up the French right flank.

At this point, French columns attacked the left-hand town sector, suffering severe musket fire. In the ensuing melee, the French infantry was forced back in Disorder.

On the Austrian right flank, the Tirailleurs du Po continued to engage Austrian skirmishers in the woods, while French columns maneuvered to envelope the flank, and was promptly met by supporting Austrian infantry. French casualties in this sector were beginning to add up. Meanwhile, Colbert successfully rallied the French cavalry and threw them back into action against the confident Hapsburg horse.

By this time, GdB Ficatier's brigade swung into action, attacking the right sector of the village, but suffering the same fate as the previous attack. Although worn down, the beleagured Austrians held onto the town, denying the French access to the crossroads. On the Austrian left, the Grenzers and cavalry advanced, with the Chevaulegers trouncing the French Hussars, throwing Colbert's brigade into Demoralization. On Turn 10, with attacks against the village failing, and the French right vulnerable, the decision was made to retire from the field. The battle was an Austrian victory ! Approximate casualties were 1,300 French to 400 Austrians. General de Division Claparede had indeed suffered a bloody nose !

Spring 1809 Napoleonic action, Part one

I decided to run a small rearguard action based on the aftermath of the battle of Abensberg (April 1809). I chose Jellacic's division to defend a crossroads against General de Division Claparede's division with some attached cavalry. The premise was simple; the outnumbered Austrians had to hold their position for 13 turns (nightfall). The rules used were the excellent General d'Armee rules by David Brown, but with modified ADC rules. FML Jellacic's force consisted of one line infantry brigade made up of 6 battalions and an advanced guard brigade that included two large Grenz battalions and the famed O'Reilly Chevaulegers. Jellacic also had 12 guns split into a battery per brigade. Claparede's force consisted of GdB Colbert's cavalry brigade (minus the elite 7th Chasseurs), two brigades of line infantry (4th battalions, so graded as Reservists), and one light brigade made up of 4 battalions of legere infantry but included the famous Tirailleurs du Po and Tirailleurs Corses. The Austrian commander decided to deploy the Grenz infantry in and around a large wood that covered the Austrian left flank. The Chevaulegers were positioned as reserve elements behind the woods and the center town. The line battalions were garrisoned into both zones of the town at the crossroads as well as the right flank. Third-rank skirmishers were placed in the woods on the right flank, but supported from the rear. GdD Clapatede's leading light brigade was deployed along the main road leading to the village, while Colbert's cavalry supported the right flank of the marching infantry. The other two infantry brigades were to march onto the table. The French only had 13 turns to capture the crossroads, so they had to move fast.

Austrian infantry deployed to the right of the town.

The leading French brigades march onto the field.

Colbert's hussars and Chasseurs support the French right. Quickly, the French skirmishers of GdB Coehorn's light brigade engaged the Austrian right flank, with both sides suffering minor losses. Two French brigades used the "forwards" ADC tasking to quickly maneuver into position to attack the center town. French cavalry moved slowly forward on the right flank, attempting to evade the Grenz sharpshooters in the woods. The O'Reilly Chevaulegers, seeing the French threat on their leftflank, began to maneuver around for an obvious showdown with the French cavalry.

French infantry begins to mass. On the Austrian right, French skirmishers suffer moderate casualties, primarily caused by the 6-pounder battery that the position was anchored on, the guns spewing forth cannister at a deadly rate. A Grenz 3-pound battery did get off a lucky shot (rolled a natural 12), dramatically killing GdB Lesuire, throwing his brigade into a Falter situation. It was now at the half-way point. The sun was beginning to drop, the French brigades were now in attacking position. En avant !

Waterloo 2021, Pt. 2

With the British right flank bent back, Hougomont taken by the French, Picton’s division holding the center, La Haye Saint and Frischermont still occupied by the allies, and the leading Prussian elements on the field, it was time for a dramatic measure. 

The Attack of the Old and Middle Guard

The British in the center had repulsed D’Erlon’s attack, but were fatigued and weakened. Lobau’s VI Corps had succeeded in attacking in conjunction with D’Erlon. The British position in the center was becoming precarious. Napoleon (played brilliantly by Jackson) then made the decision to commit a division of the Old/Middle Guard and the Guard heavy cavalry to puncture the center. The remainder of the guard would mobilize to the French right to help counter the Prussians. 

The Grenadiers a Cheval and the Empress Dragoons struck first, sending the allied infantry backwards. The artillery of the Imperial Guard also opened up as the bearskin-clad guardsmen marched up the ridge. Uxbridge, seeing the center buckle, began to siphon cavalry to help bolster the position around La Haye Saint. The fighting was fierce, but the French guards prevailed and Picton was forced to retreat and La Haye Saint was taken by the French as well. 

 

Allied troops brace for the impact

British cavalry counterattacked but the commitment of the Guard prevailed. The center was pierced and the right flank was reeling backwards. Only Cole’s small command remained unmolested at Frischermont.

The Prussians Advance

Meanwhile, Blucher’s leading elements had emerged from the Bossu du Paris and were engaging Kellermann’s heavy cavalry. French infantry from D’Erlon’s Corps and Lobau’s command were reforming against the Prussians while the French Cuirassiers and Carabiniers fought to buy time. Brilliantly, the Prussian cavalry overwhelmed the French with the loss of only one formation. Fierce fighting punctuated the Prussian advance. As the infantry began to deploy out of the woods to face the fatigued French, the game was called as Wellington ordered a full allied retreat. 

The Prussians were making substantial progress by this point, but had 2 lines of French infantry to fight through before reaching Plancenoit. Coupled with the arrival of the rest of the Old/Middle Guard infantry, it was determined that, no matter the outcome in this sector it would be a long fight. With Wellington’s troops out of the action, it was meaningless to continue the fight against Plancenoit. 

The climactic battle was over. After calculating Victory Points, it was determined that the French had over a 25% advantage, therefore the game was considered a Major French Victory. 

Thanks to all of the Tidewater Warriors, Doug Kline of Battlefield Terrain Concepts for donating a portion of the terrain, Bradley Elliott for his extraordinary painting skills (many hours ), and Mark Bruce’s donation of British heavy cavalry and Highlanders. 

We really put Et Sans Resultat through the ringer and the system was up to the task. We look forward to using these fantastic rules in the future. 

 

Waterloo 2021, Part 1

During the weekend of June 18-20, our local gaming group simulated the legendary Battle Of Waterloo. We used the grand-tactical rules, Et Sans Resultat (ESR), at the 75 yard per inch scale. Our gaming table was 12.5’ by 6’ and we featured every unit down to the battalion level. After 14 hours of action over a two-day period (not counting deployment time on Friday evening), we got a result. The ESR system worked well; two practice games prior to the big battle enabled almost everyone to learn the rules well. 

 

Most of the gang at the conclusion of battle

 

The gaming table

The battle itself was scored using a combination of geographic objectives and retreating/ broken formations making up the available victory points. Hougomont, La Haye Saint, La Belle Alliance, Plancenoit, and Frischermont made up the geographic prizes.

The British deployed with Picton holding the center, supported by Uxbridge’s cavalry Corps. The Prince of Orange held the right flank, while Hill anchored the left flank at Frischermont. 

The French deployed Reille’s Corps against Hougomont and the British right flank. In addition, Milhaud’s cavalry Corps, the Young Guard, and the light cavalry of the Imperial Guard were added here to add power to the main attack against the Dutch-Belgians. D’Erlon’s I Corps held the center and the French right flank. The Imperial Guard, Lobau’s VI Corps and Kellermann’s cavalry Corps were held in reserve in the center. 

Elements of D’Erlon’s Corps at Plancenoit

Reille, Milhaud, and Ney commanding the Young Guard gear up for the main thrust

The Old and Middle Guard in reserve

The crew in action

Action commenced on the 1120 turn as the French attack on the British right began in full earnest. A well-placed grand battery on the ridge between Hougomont and La Haye Saint repulsed two French divisions of Reille’s Corps with bloody losses. Seeing this strong British position, Ney held up the advance of the Young Guard. Shortly afterward, the Young Guard was redirected  to continue the attack on the British right. The Dutch-Belgians, along with Cooke and Alten’s British troops, began to give ground and the Dutch-Belgian cavalry had to committed. D’Erlon advanced, but only to pin the British center and left flank in place. Bombardment from both sides in this sector yielded minor casualties. 

 

The action in full earnest

 

The French attack on the Dutch-Belgians

 

Allied cavalry attempt to save the right flank

 

Milhaud’s Cuirassiers attack !

 

The battle was intense at this point

As the British right flank was giving ground, Wellington made the decision to shift Uxbridge’s cavalry to that sector. The French, in turn, launched Milhaud’s heavy cavalry and the Guard Chasseurs a Cheval against the Dutch-Belgians. Hougomont was attacked and changed hands multiple times. 

Seeing the British cavalry shift to the flank, D’Erlon then launched his Corps against the center. The Brunswick division and Clinton’s command melted away as the the French took Papelotte. Picton held his ground though, then counterattacked, and repulsed D’Erlon’s attack. The Highlanders especially covered themselves with glory! D’Erlon fell back in good order to reform.

The action at Hougomont saw the Young Guard take the chateaux, but were then forced out by British Foot Guards. 

 

French Cuirassiers in action

The Imperial Guard begins to stir

 

Dutch-Belgians giving ground

 

Reille’s Corps regroups

Action on the British right saw the Guard Chasseurs a Cheval burn through the flank, but eventually countered by the Scot Greys. Milhaud’s Cuirassiers launched multiple attacks as well. The damage was done, as the British right was beginning to buckle. Hougomont was in French hands. The British held onto the center ridge and La Haye Saint, while the French occupied Papelotte. Hill still clung onto Frischermont and anchored the British left flank. 

By this time, the Prussians were approaching the battlefield. It was time for something dramatic ! 

Next: The attack of the Old and Middle Guard. The Prussians arrive !