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.
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."
NB: Compare the height reached by the ash to the The Kármán line, or Karman line, which lies at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) above Earth's sea level and commonly represents the boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space.
Journal Reference:
Matthew J. Genge. Electrostatic levitation of volcanic ash into the ionosphere and its abrupt effect on climate. Geology, 2018; DOI: 10.1130/G45092.1
(Score: 5, Funny) by SemperOSS on Thursday August 30 2018, @09:22AM (2 children)
More than 200 years to come up with an excuse, tsk, tsk, tsk!
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 3, Funny) by BsAtHome on Thursday August 30 2018, @10:13AM (1 child)
You see, there was a dog. That dog had access to papers with large written warnings that the weather would go amok in 1815 because of a volcano far far away from the battlefield in the land that got colonized by an enemy. The dog ate those papers. Therefore, Napoleon never got those papers and he marched into the soup unprepared.
See, everything explained.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @10:17AM
Did it say "Good Morning!" and then disappear in a thin, greenish mist?
TFA is the sort of story about cause, effect, scientists and volcanoes that Fort would have had so much fun with, in his dry, sarcastic, rambling way.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @09:48AM
Nothing to do with Wallingford and the "rent-a-army" out of Bohemia, then? Deficit spending is what made the Military Industrial Complex possible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @12:18PM (2 children)
The same weather affected both sides... If an army & it's generals are not prepared to fight in conditions that they will face they deserve to lose. To state the loss was due to a volcano is weak
Sure the volcane probably influenced the weather BUT the weather is not responsible for the loss...
It's like the French constantly blaming the weather for their loss at
Agincourt rather than their inability to fight in the rain. Fair weather fighters and history supports this
(Score: 2, Insightful) by engblom on Thursday August 30 2018, @01:00PM (1 child)
When I read the summery I was thinking exactly the same. However then I thought that weather might still influence. The one more far away from home will be more affected if the climate suddenly change. You do not carry too much extra bulk with you just in case the climate would be completely abnormal from what it has been years after years. The ones closer to home will easier get the needed clothes/equipment for something abnormal.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:42PM
Well, Waterloo is in Belgium, so if we are thinking logistics the French should have had an advantage over the English/Prussians.
Waterloo is one of history's most important battles and multiple factors contributed to the French defeat. Yes, the weather is cited as one of them however I doubt dry soil would have saved the French army.
If you are interested in the sources of defeat Wikipedia has a quick section discussing it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo#Views_on_the_reasons_for_Napoleon's_defeat [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:15PM (3 children)
a little bastard with a big chip on his shoulder. Short people often get their asses handed to them when they act big.
Speaking of Waterloo, I haven't seen Louise for quite a long while. She has this trick with ice water . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Osamabobama on Thursday August 30 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)
From howstuffworks.com [howstuffworks.com]. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to disrupt your trope just for the sake of accuracy.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @07:31PM
I heard it was because he always surrounded himself with cavalry officers (big guys who ride big horses), so he looked small by comparison.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 30 2018, @08:45PM
Napoleon wasn't short.
That said, he had "acting big" down to an art form. It's a big part of what had enabled him to go from being a random minor nobleman in Corsica to Emperor of France and in charge of most of Germany, Italy, and Spain in a remarkably short amount of time. The whole Waterloo campaign came from his understanding of politics being good enough that he went from being an exile with about 2000 troops to being emperor again with 75,000 troops at his disposal in a matter of weeks.
As for his loss at Waterloo, there were lots of contributing factors:
- Napoleon's bout with illness that left him incapacitated for part of the battle. Marshal Ney was nowhere near as skillful a commander.
- Napoleon was also not as skilled a commander as he used to be. He wasn't close to as creative as he needed to be to win against superior numbers.
- The people opposing Napoleon were led by Wellington, who was just about the only person who had Napoleon figured out well enough to consistently beat him. The key concept, which was disregarded by the people who lost badly, was that if Napoleon is pushing you to do something (e.g. making an area of his forces look weak so you'll attack them), don't do that, either do nothing or do something else.
- Gerhard von Blucher (whinnying [youtube.com]) was smart enough to focus on the overall operational objectives and retreat towards Wellington after losing at Quatre Bras, rather than running back to Prussia.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.