Mystery still surrounds what happened to the bodies of Waterloo militaries(gla.ac.uk)
gla.ac.uk
Mystery still surrounds what happened to the bodies of Waterloo militaries
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_854908_en.html
51 comments
> And, pre-refrigeration, armies did not move food around in boxes.
Don't forget that canning was invented in response to a prize issued by the Napoleonic army.
However it doesn't look like it was ready for use by the time of the battle at Waterloo.
Don't forget that canning was invented in response to a prize issued by the Napoleonic army.
However it doesn't look like it was ready for use by the time of the battle at Waterloo.
Genghis Khan the great ruthless conqueror of worlds would take herds (cattle and horses/meat and milk) along with his armies in order to feed the soldiers --lucky for him, the steppes were unusually green during his campaigns.
In this case, "mystery" seems like a euphemism for "we don't especially like the most probably theory".
I know this adds nothing to the otherwise technical and scientific discussions that are the mainstay of HN except to demonstrate what an amazing free association/pattern matching machine the human brain is:
I read the title, skimmed the article, now I’m listening to ABBAs Waterloo on repeat.
I read the title, skimmed the article, now I’m listening to ABBAs Waterloo on repeat.
And I am listening to the Elliot Smith Cover of Waterloo Sunset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tRY2Vx44DE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tRY2Vx44DE
I immediately thought of the Waterloo C compiler that was available for VM/CMS back in the 80s (there were other Waterloo compilers as well, but that was the only one that I ever used).
I went to Stonewall Jackson - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-QQI6lb_Hg
Also interesting to think of names that have become "things" - Waterloo "To be decisively defeated by an encounter with a powerful opponent or a problem that is too difficult" or Hindeberg, Titanic, etc.
Also interesting to think of names that have become "things" - Waterloo "To be decisively defeated by an encounter with a powerful opponent or a problem that is too difficult" or Hindeberg, Titanic, etc.
Fun fact: the battle of Waterloo didn't take place in Waterloo but in Braine-l'alleud (3km further). Wellington could not pronounce that so he changed the name in his reports.
Wendigos!
Fee-fi-fo-fum,
I smell the blood of an Englishman,
Be he alive, or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.
But apparently not limited to the English, and for fertilizer, which grew the grain, but surprisingly accurate otherwise.
I smell the blood of an Englishman,
Be he alive, or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.
But apparently not limited to the English, and for fertilizer, which grew the grain, but surprisingly accurate otherwise.
Wasn't it "I smell the blood of a Christian" (presumably as opposed to a "Turk" or "Moor")
According to Wikipedia (never wrong!) it was known as early as 1596 with "Englishman" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fi-fo-fum
TIL the Celtic etymology of the first line.
The bodies can't be found because all that was left of the dead was used & sold. Even bones where crushed to make fertilizer. You fight for your country and this is how it ends for you. Truly wicked, not much different than today.
1. The article talks about the "used for fertilizer" hypothesis (including why it may not be a closed case).
2. "not much different than today"? Is this just some wild rhetoric or do you actually postulate that armies today are using the bodies of their dead for fertilizer/etc?
2. "not much different than today"? Is this just some wild rhetoric or do you actually postulate that armies today are using the bodies of their dead for fertilizer/etc?
Not much different than today, if the news about Russia mobile crematoriums are eventually verified
The crematoriums have been brought for civilians after Bucha. The sheer number of the civilians killed in Mariupol though forced to use traditional approaches - the ruined buildings are demolished without pulling the bodies out, and for the rest - there are huge swaths of fields near Mariupol covered with fresh graves marked only with numbers. The crematoriums are used in other places where FSB and Russian SS "Russian Guard" need to disappear the bodies of killed political activists/etc without leaving evidence like the mass grave in Bucha and there no mass casualties like in Mariupol.
The soldiers have been either abandoned (a lot in Kiev fighting) or put into number-only graves in Belarus and near Rostov. A few are sent home to have those public funerals.
The soldiers have been either abandoned (a lot in Kiev fighting) or put into number-only graves in Belarus and near Rostov. A few are sent home to have those public funerals.
Seems at least implausible. Cremation is a fairly slow and energy intense process. If you wanted to dispose of bodies, there are easier ways.
Also sure sounds a lot like the rumors back during Covid about secret mass cremations to hide how many were dying.
Also sure sounds a lot like the rumors back during Covid about secret mass cremations to hide how many were dying.
The Russians have an obvious motivation to hide how many soldiers are dying. That doesn't make it true but "it sounds a bit like something else that was nonsense" isn't a very strong refutation.
> That doesn't make it true but "it sounds a bit like something else that was nonsense" isn't a very strong refutation.
It's improbable for the same reasons it was improbable the last time it wasn't true. Secret mass cremations just aren't practical from a logistical standpoint.
It's improbable for the same reasons it was improbable the last time it wasn't true. Secret mass cremations just aren't practical from a logistical standpoint.
> It's improbable for the same reasons it was improbable the last time it wasn't true. Secret mass cremations just aren't practical from a logistical standpoint.
Your personal assertion doesn't really hold any water. Mobile crematoriums, or hiding evidence of crimes in general, are not used because they are practical. They are used because it's a possible solution for a pressing problem.
And the "mass" blurb is a misrepresentation of their mission. The purpose of mass crematoriums is not to hide the mass of battlefield casualties, but relative low volume of politically damaging killings, such as quietly disappearing civil and military leadership without trace in a post-invasion/occupation scenario.
In the case of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, it just so happened that the planned 3-day war followed by occupation never materialized, and somehow that is evidence that Russia's usage of mobile crematoriums is improbable?
Your personal assertion doesn't really hold any water. Mobile crematoriums, or hiding evidence of crimes in general, are not used because they are practical. They are used because it's a possible solution for a pressing problem.
And the "mass" blurb is a misrepresentation of their mission. The purpose of mass crematoriums is not to hide the mass of battlefield casualties, but relative low volume of politically damaging killings, such as quietly disappearing civil and military leadership without trace in a post-invasion/occupation scenario.
In the case of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, it just so happened that the planned 3-day war followed by occupation never materialized, and somehow that is evidence that Russia's usage of mobile crematoriums is improbable?
Mobile military crematories do exist in Russian military, there are public pre-war videos of them. Apparently the command seen enough need for them to manufacture the hardware. With a prior like that, it's entirely probable.
Anyone who has had a relative cremated knows that it takes 2+ hours for the body to be fully reduced to ashes and bone fragments. Two hours, for a single body, in a facility the size of a large garage. Just do some napkin math for what that means for the prospect of cremating a single body in something the size of a cement mixer.
Running non-stop with no breaks, bodies ready to go, matching the efficiency of the most optimal stationary crematories, working around the clock, a single truck could burn 12 bodies using 336 gallons of fuel (per https://www.lng2019.com/how-much-natural-gas-is-used-to-crem...) and generating 6.6 metric tons of CO2. For this to even make sense politically, there would have to be a number of bodies so large that burning it made more sense than anything else, even with how costly and obvious it would be to observers.
I'm open to your guesses, but I'm going to say one thousand innocents in a single place would be sufficiently atrocious. I say this because numbers like 100-200 are thrown around fairly casually when reporting on Ukraine and other locations, so I'm going up one magnitude from that. So 84 trucks working as described could finish this job in one day, releasing 5,500 metric tons of CO2 and consuming 2300+ gallons of fuel to do so. I leave it to the reader to determine whether it's plausible for a military in the midst of a very difficult war to dedicate the human and supply resources necessary to conduct such an operation (at peak efficiency, as described).
At the very least, the movement and fueling of 84 such trucks (or even 30 if we're spending a week doing this) should be observable. We shouldn't have to rely on video from 2013 to make these claims. The video most often shown as proof of Russia's mobile crematories is one of a mobile incinerator, e.g. for trash which can fully combust in minutes.
Running non-stop with no breaks, bodies ready to go, matching the efficiency of the most optimal stationary crematories, working around the clock, a single truck could burn 12 bodies using 336 gallons of fuel (per https://www.lng2019.com/how-much-natural-gas-is-used-to-crem...) and generating 6.6 metric tons of CO2. For this to even make sense politically, there would have to be a number of bodies so large that burning it made more sense than anything else, even with how costly and obvious it would be to observers.
I'm open to your guesses, but I'm going to say one thousand innocents in a single place would be sufficiently atrocious. I say this because numbers like 100-200 are thrown around fairly casually when reporting on Ukraine and other locations, so I'm going up one magnitude from that. So 84 trucks working as described could finish this job in one day, releasing 5,500 metric tons of CO2 and consuming 2300+ gallons of fuel to do so. I leave it to the reader to determine whether it's plausible for a military in the midst of a very difficult war to dedicate the human and supply resources necessary to conduct such an operation (at peak efficiency, as described).
At the very least, the movement and fueling of 84 such trucks (or even 30 if we're spending a week doing this) should be observable. We shouldn't have to rely on video from 2013 to make these claims. The video most often shown as proof of Russia's mobile crematories is one of a mobile incinerator, e.g. for trash which can fully combust in minutes.
> Two hours, for a single body, in a facility the size of a large garage. Just do some napkin math for what that means for the prospect of cremating a single body in something the size of a cement mixer.
You keep saying 'single body'.
Crematoriums in mortuaries operate on the principle that you put one body in and get one set of ashes out. These ashes are then put in a single urn and given to a single family who will grieve their single loved one.
That is not what Russia is using their mobile crematoriums for. You're not going to give the ashes of the deceased to the deceased's family; the deceased's family is all in the same pile of bodies with them. You do not put one body in at a time, you put in as many as will fit. As bodies are reduced, you create more space; you fill that space with more bodies. As ashes are generated, you remove the ashes as they accumulate at the bottom.
You are replacing a low volume batch process with a high volume continuous process. You do not need to wait for the crematorium to heat up or cool down. You do not need to ensure 100% complete combustion. You do not need to worry about disturbing the neighbors with the smell. You do not need particularly high flue temperatures. This will be orders of magnitude more efficient.
You are making a distinction between a mortuary grade crematorium and a mobile incinerator which needn't meet environmental regulatory standards; Russia is not making such a distinction.
You keep saying 'single body'.
Crematoriums in mortuaries operate on the principle that you put one body in and get one set of ashes out. These ashes are then put in a single urn and given to a single family who will grieve their single loved one.
That is not what Russia is using their mobile crematoriums for. You're not going to give the ashes of the deceased to the deceased's family; the deceased's family is all in the same pile of bodies with them. You do not put one body in at a time, you put in as many as will fit. As bodies are reduced, you create more space; you fill that space with more bodies. As ashes are generated, you remove the ashes as they accumulate at the bottom.
You are replacing a low volume batch process with a high volume continuous process. You do not need to wait for the crematorium to heat up or cool down. You do not need to ensure 100% complete combustion. You do not need to worry about disturbing the neighbors with the smell. You do not need particularly high flue temperatures. This will be orders of magnitude more efficient.
You are making a distinction between a mortuary grade crematorium and a mobile incinerator which needn't meet environmental regulatory standards; Russia is not making such a distinction.
That's a fascinating exploration of how you would design and run such an operation. Is there evidence that any of this is happening?
The truck that someone posted looks like it could fit two bodies and gets to 1200 degrees, which I guess works with your partial cremation theory (full cremation needs 1800-2000 degrees). It doesn't seem to me that fitting 2 bodies into the incinerator, then adding an additional "get rid of these half-burnt bodies" step, really changes my point much.
The truck that someone posted looks like it could fit two bodies and gets to 1200 degrees, which I guess works with your partial cremation theory (full cremation needs 1800-2000 degrees). It doesn't seem to me that fitting 2 bodies into the incinerator, then adding an additional "get rid of these half-burnt bodies" step, really changes my point much.
Here is a industrial incinerator which fits in a shipping container or flat bed that handles ~2000 kg/day or about 150 bodies.
https://www.azom.com/equipment-details.aspx?EquipID=4559
https://www.azom.com/equipment-details.aspx?EquipID=4559
1. This doesn't get hot enough to cremate bodies.
2. "This incinerator can burn 20000 kg/day of trash" != "This can burn 150 bodies"
3. Is this being used in Ukraine? Are there any of these devices in Russia?
2. "This incinerator can burn 20000 kg/day of trash" != "This can burn 150 bodies"
3. Is this being used in Ukraine? Are there any of these devices in Russia?
The manufacturer's YouTube videos describe that as crematorium, not incinerator. Also not sure if you have a command of Russian, but the video with burning the trash still has the narrator explaining its use for cremation of 'biological waste'. They obviously didn't want showing said waste in demonstration video.
Regarding the waste of resources, these are likely to use lower grade/bunker fuel. And as to priorities, remember Russia is the only country in the world that introduced a national standard for mass graves. In effect since February 1st this year: https://www.mchs.gov.ru/dokumenty/5693
Scroll down to page 13 for pictures if you don't read Russian.
Regarding the waste of resources, these are likely to use lower grade/bunker fuel. And as to priorities, remember Russia is the only country in the world that introduced a national standard for mass graves. In effect since February 1st this year: https://www.mchs.gov.ru/dokumenty/5693
Scroll down to page 13 for pictures if you don't read Russian.
Agree. Fuel is not relevant here. They are wasting resources at full speed yet each day of this war. The idea of wasting a few gallons more would not stop then. Not when they were mobilizing yet hundreds of war vehicles and ships for months and are the third largest oil producer in the planet.
They had thrown tens of millions of rubles to the gut and put thousands of Russian soldiers in a grinder meat, just for make an old man happy before die. They just don't care.
They had thrown tens of millions of rubles to the gut and put thousands of Russian soldiers in a grinder meat, just for make an old man happy before die. They just don't care.
Can you link to these videos?
I'm not sure what you think these regulations prove. AFAIK Russia is probably the only military of its size engaged in operations that would result in mass field casualties of soldiers, what should they do?
I'm not sure what you think these regulations prove. AFAIK Russia is probably the only military of its size engaged in operations that would result in mass field casualties of soldiers, what should they do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0hFnpyO8aY
> I'm not sure what you think these regulations prove.
That getting rid of corpses at scale is a problem they pay substantial attention to.
> I'm not sure what you think these regulations prove.
That getting rid of corpses at scale is a problem they pay substantial attention to.
The video shows them putting in trash, and that it fits about a pallet of cardboard. It also says it gets to 1200 degrees, much less than the 1800-2000 degrees required to incinerate a human.
> That getting rid of corpses at scale is a problem they pay substantial attention to.
Yes, because again, they are probably the only military in the world engaged in conventional, symmetrical combat at their scale. Advanced nations like the US will just drop a bomb on a peasant wedding in Baluchistan and let the locals do the clean up. It's much more efficient, and as a bonus, provides a great boost to the local funerary economy as well.
> That getting rid of corpses at scale is a problem they pay substantial attention to.
Yes, because again, they are probably the only military in the world engaged in conventional, symmetrical combat at their scale. Advanced nations like the US will just drop a bomb on a peasant wedding in Baluchistan and let the locals do the clean up. It's much more efficient, and as a bonus, provides a great boost to the local funerary economy as well.
> Two hours, for a single body, in a facility the size of a large garage. Just do some napkin math
I think you have mis-extrapolated the logistics.
It takes two hours for a single body, in a single-body crematorium, where the remains will be handled according to protocols developed for legal, social, and sanitary reasons.
In a truck-sized, industrial-efficiency waste disposal incinerator, with military protocols and no laws, I expect you could handle a much higher input rate.
I think you have mis-extrapolated the logistics.
It takes two hours for a single body, in a single-body crematorium, where the remains will be handled according to protocols developed for legal, social, and sanitary reasons.
In a truck-sized, industrial-efficiency waste disposal incinerator, with military protocols and no laws, I expect you could handle a much higher input rate.
Look at the video provided. That thing would maybe fit two bodies at best, and doesn't reach the temperature needed to incinerate a body. I think these claims require a much higher burden of proof than what is being offered here.
Maybe the mobile crematoria were intended to "disappear" some kidnapped and murdered Ukrainian people (mayors, prominents, intelligentsia), not dead Russian soldiers.
See, no body, no crime. Plus, a nasty dollop of uncertainty for the surviving loved ones and friends.
See, no body, no crime. Plus, a nasty dollop of uncertainty for the surviving loved ones and friends.
> Maybe the mobile crematoria were intended to "disappear" some kidnapped and murdered Ukrainian people (mayors, prominents, intelligentsia), not dead Russian soldiers.
Supposedly the initial goal of Russia's fleet of mobile crematoria was to serve during the post-invasion occupation of Ukraine to disappear elements of the country's local and central leadership that represented a risk to Russia's annexation of the Ukraine.
It just so happened that Russia's plan to steamroll through Ukraine, with their front-line troops carrying parade uniforms and riot control kit and barely any supplies or logistic infrastrucure, didn't really panned out.
Nevertheless, Ukraine claims that Russia is now using their fleet of mobile crematoria to try to hide the full scale of the atrocities in places like Mariupol.
I'd also add that Ukraine's effort to store and preserve the corpses of Russia's own dead soldiers, and be very vocal about returning them either to the deceased soldiers' families or even the Red Cross, is also a way to counter Russia's propensity to thin out their official casualty statistics.
Supposedly the initial goal of Russia's fleet of mobile crematoria was to serve during the post-invasion occupation of Ukraine to disappear elements of the country's local and central leadership that represented a risk to Russia's annexation of the Ukraine.
It just so happened that Russia's plan to steamroll through Ukraine, with their front-line troops carrying parade uniforms and riot control kit and barely any supplies or logistic infrastrucure, didn't really panned out.
Nevertheless, Ukraine claims that Russia is now using their fleet of mobile crematoria to try to hide the full scale of the atrocities in places like Mariupol.
I'd also add that Ukraine's effort to store and preserve the corpses of Russia's own dead soldiers, and be very vocal about returning them either to the deceased soldiers' families or even the Red Cross, is also a way to counter Russia's propensity to thin out their official casualty statistics.
The accusation isn’t that the Russians are hiding their dead, it’s that they are covering up their treatment of civilians.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/russia-accused-mobi...
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/russia-accused-mobi...
> mobile crematoriums
The existence of a portable system to "respectfully" dispose of the bodies is very different from profiting from the crushed bones of the deceased.
The existence of a portable system to "respectfully" dispose of the bodies is very different from profiting from the crushed bones of the deceased.
I was told that the age of multimedia would deliver radical transparency, where rumors would be dispelled before they had a chance to propagate, and superstitious beliefs would become untenable.
By who? And so what if someone told you that?
I guess the "so what" is the implication that we have not reached the
promises or potential of civilian digital communication systems. I
agree, and think what we have has instead made many areas of
information worse, fragmented and unreliable.
As for "who?", if you grew up the 80s of 90s you will remember the daily, breathless grandiose proclamations of various government digital literacy programmes. Selling the World Wide Web, the Information Superhighway, Ubiquity and Universal Access was a decade-long propaganda drive that laid the foundations for what it now the "tech industry".
Of course there is much in the world that is over-promised, and over-reaches. At some point people usually reconcile the reality with the hype. With "tech" I think that has still not happened, and many remain in a dream world, high on the fantasies they grew up with.
As for "who?", if you grew up the 80s of 90s you will remember the daily, breathless grandiose proclamations of various government digital literacy programmes. Selling the World Wide Web, the Information Superhighway, Ubiquity and Universal Access was a decade-long propaganda drive that laid the foundations for what it now the "tech industry".
Of course there is much in the world that is over-promised, and over-reaches. At some point people usually reconcile the reality with the hype. With "tech" I think that has still not happened, and many remain in a dream world, high on the fantasies they grew up with.
Hi joebob,
This is a rhetorical or satirical commentary on the fact that media technology, while having the superficial capacity for increasing access to and quality of information, often has the opposite effect of what one might expect despite that capacity. That is, it just as frequently and even more adeptly appears to embed and reinforce deeply pre-existing biases towards false -- even obviously so -- narratives which are comforting or reaffirm the believer's sense that they see through the confusion of world events.
The answers to "by whom", and "so what" questions are not going to be literal answers, just like "at what precise moment did you stop sleeping and become awake this morning" has no true answer, but would only invite a debate over the definitions of sleeping and waking. It's not meant to literally be a story about a time I was told something. I was told many things, by many people, in various forms, over a long period of time.
The comment is meant to provoke the reader to consider that technology -- far from giving man the ability to conquer his nature -- emanates from man's nature, is a servant to it, and can easily serve to reinforce and entrench it. Therefore, one ought to treat technological progress carefully, and not assume that it is equivalent to human progress.
This is a rhetorical or satirical commentary on the fact that media technology, while having the superficial capacity for increasing access to and quality of information, often has the opposite effect of what one might expect despite that capacity. That is, it just as frequently and even more adeptly appears to embed and reinforce deeply pre-existing biases towards false -- even obviously so -- narratives which are comforting or reaffirm the believer's sense that they see through the confusion of world events.
The answers to "by whom", and "so what" questions are not going to be literal answers, just like "at what precise moment did you stop sleeping and become awake this morning" has no true answer, but would only invite a debate over the definitions of sleeping and waking. It's not meant to literally be a story about a time I was told something. I was told many things, by many people, in various forms, over a long period of time.
The comment is meant to provoke the reader to consider that technology -- far from giving man the ability to conquer his nature -- emanates from man's nature, is a servant to it, and can easily serve to reinforce and entrench it. Therefore, one ought to treat technological progress carefully, and not assume that it is equivalent to human progress.
> not much different than today
I think western militaries go to pretty extraordinary lengths to recover and repatriate bodies these days.
In the Falklands in the 1980s there were still some battlefield burials, as that was still the accepted practice, but most of these were dug up after public outcry and I don't think we'd do that anymore, short of a full-scale war of national survival.
I think western militaries go to pretty extraordinary lengths to recover and repatriate bodies these days.
In the Falklands in the 1980s there were still some battlefield burials, as that was still the accepted practice, but most of these were dug up after public outcry and I don't think we'd do that anymore, short of a full-scale war of national survival.
Modern communications I would bet has something to do with this. Families often didn't find out that their relative was killed whilst campaigning until weeks/months after the event. No doubt this would have started to change during the mid-late 19th century.
I hope that my body is used to its fullest when I'm gone. Ideally they'll harvest anything useful, donate the rest to science, then dispose of what's left using the least amount of energy possible. My body is not to be revered or preserved past what is useful.
One's last sacrifice to capitalism/colonialism
So quickly we forget. By weight, most of those bones would have been animal bones. Horses and mules were everywhere around armies until the middle of the 20th century. And, pre-refrigeration, armies did not move food around in boxes. It walked behind the army on hooves. The combination of dead horses/mules in combat, plus all the cattle being eaten, means that the vast majority of bones around a battle would not have been be human.