Martin Scicluna’s article (June 17) about the Battle of Waterloo really made fascinating reading. But (inevitably for me?) whenever I read such accounts of battles, wars and similar sad, even if often heroic, events, I always find myself asking the question: “but how was it financed?”

Regarding specifically Waterloo my research has led me to a couple of interesting elements and, inter alia, intrigues.

Firstly, to what extent was Wellington dependent on financing coming via both his government in London as well as from other sources?

Ever since 1809, Wellington had been complaining of an acute shortage of cash necessary to pay his troops (including mercenaries of various nationalities).

His inevitable (redeeming?) action, according to some sources (Wilson 1988, Lietke 2005, Lopez-Morell 2005, et al) often was to borrow from bankers. And guess the origins of these financiers? They hailed from Sicily, from Spain, and, to boot, even included Maltese bankers. You can add to these the Rothschilds.

The rates of interest charged by Maltese and Spanish bankers were particularly exorbitant.

Wellington sent various angry despatches back home on this issue but support was, when and if it did come, never adequate. And these communications were often the common stock of daily discussion in the commercial, finance and political circles of the time.

The old Nathan Rotschild himself was certainly privy to most of these despatches. He certainly knew about the general’s bitter complaining. There was, for example, one particular despatch to Lord Liverpool in London where Wellington clearly told the government that Britain’s only choice lay between fighting Napoleon in Spain and fighting him at home.

There are also some interesting accounts about bills of exchange that were on occasions issued to finance Wellington’s warring and, here again, they make for stories of often obscene profiteering being made by agents and bankers as these instruments moved up the negotiating and clearing chain back to source.