566 
ACHIEVEMENTS OF FIELD ARTILLERY. 
attributed the prejudice which must have biassed the Duke’s mind 
when he wrote in terms of most unmerited disparagement o£ the 
behaviour of the artillery at Waterloo. 
Until his letter appeared to light in 1872, there appeared to be a 
concensus of opinion as to the gallantry displayed by our troops and 
batteries in the most decisive battle they had ever taken part in. 
To those anxious to master all the details of the controversy set on 
foot by the letter referred to, the pages 1 of the “History of the Regi¬ 
ment ” are open, and eloquent testimony is brought forward in them to 
vindicate its reputation. Here it can only be added that artillery 
cannot advance to reap the harvest of its performances as do the 
other arms, and can bear back no trophies to keep green the memory 
of their deeds. It is our proud boast that at Waterloo, as in all our 
glorious battles at the commencement of the century, which were 
mainly fought against superior odds, our guns formed the rallying 
points to our lines, lent the steady support to the infantry which they 
most needed, and rendered possible the ultimate advance, in the glory 
of which they could not participate, but of which the}' justly may 
demand a share. And further, it may be justly claimed that the great 
cavalry charges on our line at Waterloo were chiefly defeated by the 
fire of our guns served up to the very last moment with splendid 
courage by our gunners, and with most destructive result. Mercer’s 
journal has made us all familiar with the story, and the pile of dead he 
tells us was so high in front of where his troop stood that it was notice¬ 
able from the French position on the opposite slope. 
Major Rudyard, writing to the historian of the campaign of his 
experiences, says of the doings of his battery—“When advancing on 
our fire I have seen four or five men and horses piled upon each other 
like cards, the men not having even been displaced from the saddle, 
the effect of canister.” 2 
Sir Augustus Frazer says—“ The earlier hours of the battle were 
chiefly affairs of artillery, but, kept down by the admirable and steadily 
continued fire of our guns, the enemy’s infantry could not come on 
en masse ; and his cavalry, though bold, impetuous, and daring, was 
forced to try the flanks rather than the front of our position. The 
steadiness of our infantry, too, became confirmed by the comparative 
repose afforded by our fire.” 
The victory at Waterloo was due to the harmonious co-operation of 
all three arms striving loyally for the same object and controlled by a 
master hand in tactics in united and reciprocating efforts. It would 
be invidious and ungracious to endeavour nicely to guage the exact 
proportion of their individual shares in a result due so greatly to the 
courage and self-sacrifice displayed by all alike. Nevertheless, in cases 
where an arm, owing to the absence of any tangible trophies, has had 
its performances called in question by our leader, and has in conse¬ 
quence perhaps hitherto received less than its fair share in the credit 
of the day, it may justly assert the value of co-operation which, if it 
accomplished nothing exceptionally brilliant, was none the less real and 
1 Appendix to Duncan’s “ History of the Royal Artillery.” 
2 Siborne’s “ Waterloo Letters,” No. 99. 
