Quote Originally Posted by Dhampir
I'm not certain if an exact account of how a battle was fought is particularly relevant when you're finding where it was fought.

Battle tactics at Wavre didn't alter the location of the river Dyle, nor at Gettysburg did they alter the location of McPherson's Ridge.

And I have no doubt that if the actual locations were not known, using the accounts available and google maps, you could find the locations.
Given that where the general in question had a choice of where to fight, itself based on how his army fought, it's vitally pertinent to the question of where. Insofar as choice of location is influenced by the troops at his disposal, their morale and discipline and so on, then it matters. Where a battle is fought, and then where specific units are placed is intrinsically tied up with how they fight.

To put it into your context, battle tactics were a strong influence on a battle being fought at Wavre at all, and the specific places chosen to dispose of troops. How the land was then would interact with this mix. Without understanding how they fought (and with Napoleonic warfare, we actually have a pretty good idea with the number of contemporary accounts and manuals and so on that survive) it becomes difficult to pinpoint with a good degree of accuracy where it was fought. Because you don't have all the information on what influenced the general to choose to fight a battle where they did.

This is the crux of my query. I'm not just trying to be negative and difficult, but questioning how much you can get out of this exercise with so many unknowns. Unlike with Napoleonic battles, ancient ones suffer from not only deficits in information, but millenia of change in the landscape itself.