Waterloo Visit ?

Yes, if you are a history lover. Since the 2015 bicentenary, the site has been significantly upgraded. It is no longer just a "hill with a lion on it." The underground Memorial 1815 Museum is now world-class, featuring immersive 4D films and high-tech displays. However, if you are not interested in the Napoleonic Wars, you might find a day trip to Ghent or Bruges (both under an hour away) more visually rewarding.

I spent a half day at Waterloo. Came away with an understanding that the fate of Western Europe was changed in a fairly small area. It was worth it to a degree. If you’re a student of military history go see it.

For those interested in history it’s certainly interesting, with a visit you get more feel with the past, something you can’t get otherwise. You can combine it with a visit to the Wellington Museum, his headquarter at the time in the center of Waterloo. And the final headquarter of Napoleon some 4km south of the battle field.

https://www.waterloo1815.be/en/
https://www.museewellington.be/?lang=en
https://www.dernier-qg-napoleon.be/en/home/

During the bicentenary of 2015 I was in the Musée de l’Armee in Paris and can’t remember finding anything about the Battle of Waterloo or anyway something related to the bicentenary. The only thing I saw was a leaflet in the museum shop, that was it. Seems still too painful for the French till today.

The only thing I saw was a leaflet in the museum shop, that was it. Seems still too painful for the French till today.

Yes, of course, Napoleon was (and is) THE hero of France. Think about that when you visit his tomb in Paris https://www.napoleon.org/jeunes-historiens/napodoc/le-tombeau-de-napoleon-aux-invalides/

But shouldn't it be painfull for the European neither? Are we aware of the fact that a victory of Napolean would probably have avoided both WWI and WWII ?
And that the struggle for a unified European Union of today wouldn't have been necessary since we all would have been one big France!

Do we realize that the 'butte', the hill with the lion on it, is just a monument erected in order of Willem I for his son Willem II on the location where the latter was get wounded. I won't elaborate on the tactical failures he made...
And we won't dwell on the fact that in 1830 the Dutch were expelled and Belgium declared its independence. If the "butte" hadn't not yet been there then, it would never have been there... I'm glad it was never removed, though... ... ,😉 ... it's just too beautiful!

I haven’t been to Waterloo but hope to go on a future visit to Brussels. I think historically, while important, it’s a bit overrated since even if Napoleon had won it, he still wouldn’t have lasted long, although the war would have lasted longer. France was exhausted and all of Europe was against him. So history would not have changed fundamentally. Just as had happened the year before, the allies would have ground their way to Paris and taken it.

Victor Huge states in " Les Miserables " if only it had not rained the night before. The British historian Andrew Roberts in "Napoleon : A Life" states that Napoleon had made so many mistakes in the Waterloo campaign (4 engagements, not 3 ) that he deserved to lose.

Keep in mind on the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo it took the armies of 2 Great Powers (Prussia and Britain , that Anglo-Dutch force) to overwhelm Napoleon along with the errors he himself made.

"...worth the time" Absolutely, best to do this by rental car and allow yourself two days for a thorough exploration of the sites, Wavre, Plancenoit, La Cateau, the numerous monuments, plus the museums in Waterloo itself.

Some years back, 2016 or 2015? the Army Museum in Paris held a special summer exhibit on "Napoleon as Strategist". Luckily, I was in Paris at the time. The exhibition showed Napoleonic realia (lots of it) and books on the subject, all in French. Waterloo was featured, obviously. Brochures on this special exhibition were available in French as well as in English, I got one of each.

Re: Experiences in Waterloo.

I have visited the site only once, ie, in the summer of 1984, got there at noon and stayed until a bit after 7 PM when I had to leave since the French woman driver insisted on it. After nearly seven hours, it was still not enough time. Going to waterloo now since the centennial one can see a lot more than was available in 1984.

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/brussels-and-waterloo

Better would be only mentioning that I couldn’t find anything about the bicentenary there. Ofcourse I didn’t expect being celebrated, but didn’t expect too that it looked being ignored. Waterloo seems still a delicate subject in France.

The following is how I look to this period in history:

Under the influence of Enlightenment at the time Europe was changing from a Medieval Class Society (nobility, clergy, peasantery) based on an agricultural economy, to a society with a more prominent position for the middle class / citizenry. The latter much more complex making democracy with it’s civil rights and for instance the Industrial Revolution and the rise of science possible. But it went not as straightforward as it should be. The clergy and the nobility were very anxious losing their dominant position (and their privileges), so resulting in a confrontation with the lower class, hence the French Revolution.

Napoleon was a man of both worlds. With his military ambitions traditional, with remodelling the societies of the nations he had conquered he was very modern. With for instance introducing there the Code Napoleon / Code Civil, based on the ideas of Enlightenment he changed legislation. Meaning more rights for citizens and lesser for nobility and clergy, and so undermining their dominant position. Actually turning these societies upside down.

With the horror of the French Revolution in mind the traditional ruling class in Europe had (from their point of view) a good reason to be worried and so doing everything to stop Napoleon. Nevertheless the influence of the French Revolution and that of Napoleon sparked the idea that societies could change with the idea improving life for many and so could develope to the modern society we know today. But it was not an easy proces, the 19th century was characterized by many revolutions and uprises across Europe. It made for instance the unification of Germany and Italy possible.

Nobility and clergy did everything to stop this proces, finally resulting in WW1 puting an end to many monarchies like that of Germany, Austria and Russia. And so came an end to their dominant position in Europe.

What would have been the outcome if Napoleon had won Waterloo remains to my idea hard to say. Nevertheless his historical impact remains undeniably huge. But if the whole proces of changing from the Medieval Class Socierty to the modern society we live in today had been an evolution instead of a revolution history had been completely different for sure. Think everybody would have been better off, however this didn’t happen. Waterloo was a win for the nobility in Europe, not for the common citizen.

To answer OP’s question: Yes it’s worth visiting Waterloo.

Re: "Napoleon was (and is) THE hero of France." How utterly true ! One only needs to see the abundance of evidence of that in France, souvenirs, memorial plaques, monuments, street names, business names, eg, cafe Napoleon, Hotel Napoleon, museums , statues, historical reenactments of Napoleonic (personal) events and the battles (Waterloo, Leipzig, Austerlitz, etc.) in Germany, France, the Czech Rep. and of course Belgium.

On what if Napoleon had "won" at Waterloo? Delving into that sort of counterfactual history is intriguing and challenging (to say the least) provided the assertion is buttressed by relevant and pertinent evidence. First of all, how does one define "won" ?

Both the Prussians and Wellington evacuate the horrific battlefield at night? Or, maybe only the British, knowing the determination and temperament of the Prussians regardless of the extent to which they were mangled by Napoleon 2 days prior to Waterloo, yet still arriving in strength almost cut off the French escape route. Both leaving since they knew they needed each other to overwhelm Napoleon. ? Keep in mind it took the 2 combined armies acting in unison plus decided advantage in battlefield dispositions plus Napoleon's numerous errors at Waterloo to bring about his utter defeat.

Bottom line: If Wellington really had believed that he had better save what was left of his Anglo-Dutch Army given the percentage of his dead and wounded, he would have tried to reach the Channel ports, maybe the Tory government might have fallen, assuming the Whigs were more amenable to peace....that's stretching it....that might have signaled to the Russians and Prussians the needed British financial aid would no longer be forth coming with which to continue the war to rid themselves of Napoleon, whom they all had declared an outlaw.