Why did Hugo write the Battle of Waterloo in such detail in Les Miserables?

In addition to Hugo's desire to show the style of the times through literature, I think the battle of Waterloo attracted him a very important feature, which is in line with the world view presented in Les Miserables.

This is: impermanence.

In Hugo's view, there was no convincing winner in the battle of Waterloo.

Napoleon's battle plan is perfect, but the fate of victory or defeat depends on the cannon, which depends on the weather. If there were better weather to March, Wellington would be defeated and Waterloo would be a decisive blow to Napoleon's ambition.

Unfortunately, when the weather forecast said it would rain, there was no Wyzo Jiang Lang from heaven to help.

Missing the weather does not mean losing everything. Napoleon may kneel in Wellington before blucher arrives. Even if you can't finish this task, at least you can finish a decent retreat afterwards.

However, this is not the case.

Some Bonaparte elements who are full and have nothing to do can't control the weather, can't kill Wellington, and can't be competent for strategic shift. What's there to say?

Wellington's victory is a victory of a second-rate strategist over a first-class military genius, a victory full of fog and mystery, and a victory of impermanence. So Hugo attributed the honor to Brauner, who was beaten to gain a foothold, and wrote with a very complicated mood:

Who is the winner? Is it Wellington? No, without blucher, he would lose. Is it blucher? No, blucher couldn't have cleaned up the mess without Wellington.

The impermanent fate hanging over Bonaparte also haunts other characters in Les Miserables. Correspondingly, it is everyone's attitude towards impermanence.