"Peter Hofschroer" Topic

I see lots of abusive replies to my post. None of the comments diminish, in my opinion, the significant primary source reporting done by the author in the past and which qualifies him as an important figure in scholarship in the era, for example, one of the first to debunk the myth of the French super-skirmisher in 1806.

I get the point that several of his readers take editorial issue with his work on Waterloo which they found somewhat sensationalistic. Haven't read it, probably never will. Bet Wellington's reputation survives it.

But if the above comments are any indication, there are lots of people who could be banned from TMP for not staying 'on point' in their arguments.

One of the above comments was that PH's thesis is disproven by the presence of the Prussians on the Siborne model. But, according to a review of the book, PH does NOT state that the Prussians were left out of the model.

REVIEW QUOTE
One hundred thousand visitors were reported to have viewed the completed model, with the notable absence of the Great Duke. Wellington explained privately that he "was unwilling to give any Sanction to the truth of such a representation in the Model." Wellingtonians criticized both the model and the later book for the forward placement of the Prussians on the battlefield. Later Wellington was to call the model "all farce, fudge!" and the Duke's close advisors opined that Siborne had been "humbugged" by the Prussians.

END QUOTE.

So, at least one criticism of his work appears to be inaccurate.

>>>>The oddity was Mr. Hollins with his anti-American diatribes comparing Napoleonic history with contemporary events and Napoleon's actions equated with that of Hitler.<<<<

Agreed, some people will never learn. The problem with many historians today as compared to say 20 or more years ago comes down to one thing, the internet.

What I mean is this, before the advent of the internet historians were much more respected as a result of their work. It was near impossible to contact them unless you knew one and so many opportunities to question their work were impossible. You simply had to take for granted their work was 100% correct, truthful and accurate. Nowadays with the constant flow of information and interaction historians have become much more accountable for their work.

Many will freely speak on forums and converse with those who wish to listen or ask questions. But what is worse is that other historians can also contact them freely, question their work and take them to task on its validity. I am not saying this is a bad thing because in the end they now have to be more accountable for what they write. However, if the author responds negatively or poorly to another's questions they quickly lose credibility and things really can really get ugly for them.

Before the internet you could still voice your opinions and demand validity on an author's book through magazines etc but this was time consuming and a lengthy way to do it. Here on TMP I can write and get a reply within half a minute if PH was online and cared enough to answer my questions. But when he responds like he has previously to not only me but others with his ugly and childlike responses you wonder how stable he is and end up forming a low opinion of his work. How can you respect an author who responds with, "me no speaka da engrish" while using a handle name like "Lu Chi chin" or what ever his handle was?

It is no wonder people despise him and give no credit to his work no matter how good or thorough it might be. He just has no credibility with many people including me.

Regards,
Shane

shane:
Seems to me the accusations levelled against him can just as well be levelled aginst the authors of books you seem to readily quote from…
The only difference is he criticises the brits not the french or prussians.

So PH think Welly "gloated" in a letter, remember this quote
"Napoleon made no reply, but looked at Ney with a stony stare. To put it plainly, he knew the Marshal was lying."
To me both are embellishments?.

As for historians should not "dig, dig, dig"…I think that is exactly what historians should do.

The vast majority of text on the Waterloo campaign is anglo-centric, PH work is important becuase there is so little on the other side of the scale. I dont agree with all of his conclusions, but then again I dont necesarily agree with all the conclusions of every author I read but it doesn't make the rest of what they have to say worthless.

There are so many books published on Waterloo where the authors seem to have done nothing but read someone else book on Waterloo without doing any research of there own. PH is valuable for the research he has done particuallry in areas most others ignore or gloss over. You dont have to agree 100% with everything he says in order to value his contribution.

If he goes over the top in attacking Welly at times, so what, pales in insignifigance to the Nappy/Ney bashing that goes on. If you say Welly gloated your a liar, say that Nappy had a stony stare and your just stating facts.

Seems to me PH's biggest crime was he wasn't born in the UK and as a "foriegner" has had the temerity to have a go at one of our national institutions.

Of course they're both embellishments. Would it be so difficult to preface embellishment like that with "One can imagine that…"?

blackmamba, that is all well and good but as condottiere just said, PH is actually a Britton, go figure….

as for digging, yes, you are correct, however, he digs for the wrong reasons, to discredit Wellington on flimsy excuses and very paper thin evidence. Worse still PH discredits himself by re-inventing himself here on TMP time and time again to carry on like a child….you trust someone like that that their "evidence" should be taken seriously? I don't.

Shane

He's a Brit, not a German

Dont spoil a good argument with mere facts please!!

LOL .. I stand corrected…

Next you'll tell me Chandler was Swedish or Lu Ny is not Chinese!

Just a minor point about Wellington's gloating.

He did. Frequently. From the back of my mind I recall that when he was forced to retreat from Burgos -because he 'forgot' the siege guns, mind you-, he blamed consecutively the Spanish Army, the guerrillas and, surprisingly, the Royal Navy! In the winter 1812 everybody knew the truth (the Duke forgot his guns) 200 years later I have found the words of the Duke's dispatch quoted by less than careful historians as Revealed Truth, and thus basing their judgements (ugly thing for any historion, by the way) in out of context phrases.

Though, every single field officer, in every single army, from the lowest rank to the highest, never shouldered the blame himself if he could find a useful scapegoat nearby. And probably it is the same today.

you trust someone like that that their "evidence" should be taken seriously?

Actually, yes.
Its just the nature of the medium for otherwise rational human beings to overreact and act like children and that applies to almost everyone on the net, including most everyone on TMP and to be honest PH was provoked.

I don't think that's 'gloating'.

I think the point wasn't that Peter Hofschoer became frustrated and allowed his posts to become harsh or inappropriate. They were consistent all the way through.
I never saw/or recall seeing one of his posts refer to anything vaguely historical in flavour, let alone Napoleonic specifically. I'm not exadurating, I mean not once. With the exception of the last post of his that I read, I also don't recall any of his posts saying anything than some one was insane or a head banger.
If he became angry and inserted that sort of insult into some other point, then I'm sure, most people could live with that. Its just that seemed to be the only point he wished to make. :o)
So coming back to my original point I don't think he was baned because he said anything particularly nasty. It was just he didn't say anything else at all. But I am guessing I suppose. Perhaps the Editor could make it clearer?
regards
Max
PS I don't have a British army and don't care one bean wether or not Wellington is proved to be a cad, bounder or a gloater of the first order.

I will admit that I do not know of this British who does write against Wellington from the perspectives of the Prussians. I can see that he does now live among us, and thus did never meet the Lord Wellington, nor fight with his Army.

Do any of the colleagues know of any similar complaints about the Lord Wellington made by any of the Prussians who did fight in the campagne of 1815 ?

One might think that such as this could be the basis for a discussion of the history of complaints against the Lord Wellington, not complaints that did a rise in our days.

Thank you for any infos, especially from among the colleagues who are germano-phones,

- un ami

Once again (no matter how heated the postings or how strongly the lines are drawn) Um Ami comes along, injects a dose of sanity and then preceeds to make an interesting point.
Salut Um Ami
regards
Max

I think it's sad that a historian of Mr. Hofschroer's calibre, fame/notoriety is banned from TMP. But it's equally sad that Mr. Hofschroer had to resort to sock-puppery to attack his critics.

I hope that TMP and Mr. Hofschroer will be able to resolve this matter so that he can post here (preferably as himself) once more.

Ah, but the question is…….is he still here?

Any guesses on which of the people already posted on this thread are actually PH???????

And how many other authors can you ask that question about…….and be serious????

I'm Peter Hofschroer & so is Condottiere.
donald

Yep, Un Ami, you've done it again .. your posting brings a touch of gentlemanly debate to this forum.

I've noticed that even if you totally disagree with what someone has said, you've got a way of saying it that makes the reader much more receptive to your argument.

I think it is treating people with respect, being humble, and accepting that just because he says something doesn't mean he mightn't be proved wrong. Plus he gives a learned perspective outside the normal Anglo/German/French world-view.

Now if PH, DH and a few of the others here who have divergent opinions could take a leaf out of Un Ami's book, I think some of our debates might actually go somewhere, instead of our interminable getting-everyone's-back-up arguments that only polarise the sides.

@Un Ami
The Prussians disliked/distrusted Wellington after the Congress of Vienna where they felt he personally had betrayed them, over the Saxony/Poland question, and Gniesnau in particular is noted as distrusting Wellington as a result, so outside of Blucher its probable that there wasn't a Prussian who didn't think the same as PH lol.

Blucher? Thats what comes from a heavy ingestion of Gin and Rhubarb

@ Un Ami

Yes you find this quite hot discussion in German 19th century / 20. century literature, it was terminated for some time by the first world war. But now you could find some aspects again in serious modern German works, which indicates that in principle there still is an unresolved case or a nice opportunity to write good history.

The problem here IMHO is/was, that some points of Hofschroer's attack against Wellington and supporters could not be supported by German sources and in the resulting fight other interesting aspects of the affair became collateral damage.

For me it is still very interesting to learn more about the promise of support Wellington gave Blücher (many different versions exist), the additional material/changes that were introduced into the Dispatches…..

The political background in June 1815 was very interesting and the feeling of the Prussians of being betrayed by Wellington was contrasted by the support they gave him after Ligny, here Gneisenau, who is often described as the major Prussian "opponent" of Wellington by most English authors, made very likely the critical decisions.

Ulenspiegel

>>>>and to be honest PH was provoked.<<<<

Not the way I see it, you know what they say, "if ya can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

As Oscar Wilde said, "There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about".

I am sure PH's (and to a lesser extent my own) efforts will be discussed long after the small-minded bile above is long forgotten about. I never see those spouting that bile adding to our understanding of events, yet they expect those they affect to dislike to go out to do the work.

Indeed, if you want to see the idiot tendency, Kiley's hatchet job on DD&S on Nap artillery was briefly joined by someone else, who just backed Kiley up with spite. It seems some people on here don't have enough to do.

"including most everyone on TMP and to be honest PH was provoked."

I've seen many more people on TMP act on a very mature way than childish. Even if Peter was provoked in a worse way you claim that's not justification for acting in such an inmature way and even worse to make it again.

I think he has made an interesting work with the Prussian point of view with valuable aditions on the Waterloo events from the Prussian perspective, but I am utterly dissapointed with his sockpupetting and inmature way to behave in the internet.

Ah;
Kiley – Wrong but Romantic
Hollins – Right but Repulsive
…

I've seen many more people act on TMP on a very mature way

Aw come on don't argue black is white, the Nappy forum is renowned for its immaturity. You show me which week where there isn't some ridiculous rant going on between one person or another.

Seriously though, in that specific point I was not excusing his actions, what I was referring to was that acting immaturely on a board is not IMHO a reason for disregarding his research becuase acting immaturley online IS a result of the medium which DOES cause people who when face to a face might have a perfectly reasonable arguments behave differently becuase of the loss of body language, that IS a fact.

I find it simply amazing how hollins can hijack yet another thread and make it all about him and the wrong K has done him or others. It is truly sickening. dave, you got nothin better to do with your spare, errr busy time ?

Yes Dave perhaps.
But the difference is that on this forum you've been an informative (and at times, in my opinion) selfless contributor. PH (to my knowledge) never has.
regards
Max

"Aw come on don't argue black is white, the Nappy forum is renowned for its immaturity. You show me which week where there isn't some ridiculous rant going on between one person or another."

I've seen many rants going in here, yes, and bitter fights over arguments. But this is not the same. Most of the time the people "show only one face" defending their arguments and keep it the same, some times bitterly but most of the time with arguments to be proven or disproven. But very few times I've seen the use of sockpupetting. That attitude is not too common on any board and is very reprensible.

"becuase acting immaturley online IS a result of the medium which DOES cause people who when face to a face might have a perfectly reasonable arguments behave differently becuase of the loss of body language, that IS a fact."

And another fact is that making the same wrong again and again shows it's not a sign of maturity and very bad Internet manners, I could understand that PH made an error and got carried away by the critic, but making exactly the same wrong again after some time?, utterly childish. And that there are many people commiting wrongs does not make it excusable.

Can someone please show the feudin' Nappies the way back to their forum?
Some of our older members are trying to take a nap and all this din is keeping them awake ;-)

Pygmalion (And don't think I haven't noticed your user name is an annagram of Napolygm!!!!!!!);

Take a Nap? Take a 'NAP'? Is that some sort of veiled insult to the mighty Emperoror? You are clearly a sock-puppet for the anti-Bricole Fascist Insurgency who have been posting dogpoo through my letterbox and turning the leaves upside doen on my lawn ever since I published 'Fingerless Gloves of the 100 days – was Wellington secretly GAY?' in 1997.

pAT

does not make it excusable.

And …. As I said before….. if you read the point I was responding to it was about invalidating someones research because they act childishly online….
it was not about excusing the behavior…

@un ami

you write

"Do any of the colleagues know of any similar complaints about the Lord Wellington made by any of the Prussians who did fight in the campagne of 1815 ?

One might think that such as this could be the basis for a discussion of the history of complaints against the Lord Wellington, not complaints that did a rise in our days."

It was not only a complaint of Prussians versus Wellington, but other states had this problem as well, I must find the comment of an officer of the Brunswick or Hannoverian army who felt the Wellington was due to an explantion of his behaviour in the campaign of 1815.

About Peter Hofschröer, I find it is a shame that he is banned. This is a victory for those whose only interest on TMP seems to attack persons by personal attacks and flaming because they lack the expertise to confront them in a discussion.

Their aim is that such people like Peter Hofschröer, or Dave Hollins get banned, so that they can spill out their trivial knowledge unchallenged.

Condottiere,

I find it interesting that you included me here when I wasn't posting and in the way you mentioned what I had said.

Be that as it may, I don't believe in calling someone a 'liar' on the internet (nor do I believe in stifling-that is a form of censorship which tends to cut down on two way conversations). To me, that is just too easy to do from behind a keyboard. Having been called a 'liar,' 'ignorant,' 'dishonest,' a 'coward,' a 'plagiarist,' 'demented,' a 'nutter,' and accused of having 'made things up' and other pejoratives it seems that it is just too easy to accuse people of anything someone is in the mood to do at the moment on the forums when they wouldn't dare do it to their face or in public. I certainly don't relish being talked to or about that way and I would assume others don't either. And I don't believe I would react well to someone saying something like that to me in public. Situations such as those can really get ugly.

Of course, there are some folks I've come across in the past who interpret disagreement as an attack, or telling someone they are incorrect as being akin to calling them a 'liar' which is not correct. It's all kind of stupid really, and I absolutely regret getting involved in petty arguments in the past and try to avoid them. It appears to me that some come to the forums to do nothing but bait or cause an argument.

I was once told a story by a friend of mine in the publishing business that someone actually asked a publisher to see another person's manuscript (actually the person had demanded to see it) because he wanted to review it to see its content. Of course, the publisher refused, politely and that was it. Anyways, it was an interesting story.

Lastly, if you would, and I would deeply appreciate it, if I'm not invovled in a conversation, please don't involve me in it. That really isn't necessary and I don't have a dog in this contest. It's interesting to read, naturally, but as I'm not involved, please don't bring me into it at all.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Von Winterveldt:

It's not a 'victory' for anyone- except possibly common sense.

"for those whose only interest on TMP seems to attack persons by personal attacks and flaming because they lack the expertise to confront them in a discussion."

Well I seem to recall PH was confronted- and his display of 'expertise' amounted to either personally insulting somebody- in a way that was quite libelous- or pretending to be Chinese…

So save the patronising remarks about things 'trivial'.
He still hasn't answered the questions raised by Cacadores, despite being given every chance to do so.

Anyone who subtitles his book "the German Victory" has obviously got an agenda.
If he'd had the class to call it "Waterloo- the Prussian Contribution", or similar, then I may have given it a chance.
Revisionist history is very popular these days. He jumped on the bandwagon. I hope he enjoyed spending his thirty pieces of silver.

Steve.

Wow so funny. After one day it's like a Women's Institute stitch and bitch session :-)

So what is the most balanced book on Waterloo to read?

Jeffsayshi:"Welly huggers who wave the despatch like a flag of victory should maybe have a look at a few more of Wellingtons battle despatches to understand the protocol involved in them." What a convoluted way of rubbishing the evidence. I'm sorry you take offense at people giving credence to primary sources, but I will not apologise for taking a source written on the evening of the Battle seriously. Context is everything – the first account back to England would be the one to have the most impact. If you tall poppy syndrome types are so convinced he was out to do the Prussians out of their fair share of credit why was he so fulsome in his praise about them in this, the most sensational report. If he was so consumed with jealousy and incompetence as you and Hofschroer seem to think, then surely he would have damned them with faint praise in this report, excusing it later on the gorunds of tiredness, and them grudgingly mentioned their contribution later on. Or was that all part of his fiendish plot – good job he wasnt trying to run an army at the time.

@Maxshadow & @Arteis

Thank you both very much, dear colleagues, for your kind comments. I am very honored to participate here with you and hope that I do always show this in how I do write (some times I am not too sure, as I do struggle greatly for fluency in writing – "ma femme" will say this applies equally to Russian, English and French)

:-)

@blackmamba
"The Prussians disliked/distrusted Wellington after the Congress of Vienna"

@Ulenspiegel
"Yes you find this quite hot discussion in German 19th century / 20. century literature,"

@von Winterfeldt
"It was not only a complaint of Prussians versus Wellington, but other states had this problem as well, I must find the comment of an officer of the Brunswick or Hannoverian army who felt the Wellington was due to an explantion of his behaviour in the campaign of 1815."
I do I think recall of such from the Dutch-Belgians, for the failure to give a good notice for the services of their cavalerie lourde.

But for all three of you, dear colleagues, I will say we have :
- complaint of actions of the Lord Wellington as a politician
- complaint by historians
- complaint by allies not Prussiens for conduct and reporting of the 1815 campagne.

The question I did pose, with a focus to match the focus of the modern British writer Hofschroer :
What were the complaints, if any, of Prussiens who did serve in the campagne of 1815 about the Lord Wellington for his conduct of the campagne or the credit he did give to Prussiens for their rôle ?

- votre ami

As a neutral observer here, may I suggest to all that the series of articles in First Empire on the subject of Wellington, the Prussians, and Waterloo by Gary Cousins, Greg Pedlow, and John Hussey might help with any discussion of this general topic? I have found them interesting and very well done.

Sincerely,
Kevin

UA, please note many British officers who fought at Waterloo were critical of Wellington's conduct of the 1815 Campaign &, particularly, the amount of recognition he didn't pay some for their services.
Wellington could be a prickly & icy character.
Nautiloid: Jac Weller's book?
donald

Condotierre,

Thanks for the clarification and no offense taken.

Sincerely,
Kevin

_________________
'It's not a 'victory' for anyone- except possibly common sense.'
_________________

"Depends on who has the sense".
Too cryptic for me.

__________________
'Well I seem to recall PH was confronted- and his display of 'expertise' amounted to either personally insulting somebody- in a way that was quite libelous- or pretending to be Chinese'
_____________________

"No one's denyinf that"
Thanks.

________________________
'He still hasn't answered the questions raised by Cacadores, despite being given every chance to do so.'
________________________

"Cacadore isn't exactly the type who'd be satisfied with any answer unless it showed his beloved Wellington in a positive light. Likes to overemphasize or exaggerate Napoleon's atrocities."
That sounds like a lot of chaff thrown up to avoid the issue. Cacadores won't be satisfied? Perhaps PH should try it and see.

__________________________
'Anyone who subtitles his book "the German Victory" has obviously got an agenda.'
__________________________

"The German Victory refers to the large numbers of ethnic Germans in the various armies."
I'm aware of that. What's your point?

____________________________
'If he'd had the class to call it "Waterloo- the Prussian Contribution", or similar, then I may have given it a chance.'
________________________________

"From your first post here, you haven't come across as the tolerant type, unless you could elaborate on to whom you referred to as "fanboy." I've been known to misread intent."
My first post was quite light hearted in tone- don't no why you should infer any intolerance from that one. The 'fanboy' bit merely alluded to the prior post. The point I was making was whether or not this poster was actually PH.

_____________________
'If he'd had the class to call it "Waterloo- the Prussian Contribution", or similar, then I may have given it a chance.'
___________________________

Why have you quoted this passage? What's your problem with it?

__________________________
'Revisionist history is very popular these days. He jumped on the bandwagon. I hope he enjoyed spending his thirty pieces of silver.'
____________________________

"If it makes you feel better keep saying this to yourself. I'm only interested in the data in the books, don't agree with all of his interpretations."
Doesn't really have any particular effect on my well-being. Just my opinion. Have you got a better explanation?

"I'm only interested in the data in the books,"
We're agreed on that much.

Steve.

Rather than calling Mr Hofschroers take on the Prussians contribution at Waterloo an agenda I prefer to think of it as his "unique selling point"
The Napoleonic Wars in general and that campaign in particular have been written about so many times that any contemporary author needs to have a USP unless they intend to merely repeat the countless other secondary sources that exist.
Writing any such book is a immensely time consuming process and I take my hat off to anyone who is prepared to invest that time in doing so.Particularly in an area where you know your every word will be analysed by others ,many of whom have their own USPs to promote.Having taken all of that time I can quite easily see how constant attacks, however well intentioned, will drive anyone to dispair.Perhaps his USP is just too provocative.Perhaps he does himself no favours by his tactics in dealing with his detractors.
From what I gather there are no living authors in this area who have written an error free book and I just wish that objective criticism could be given and taken by all those concerned.

'From what I gather there are no living authors in this area who have written an error free book and I just wish that objective criticism could be given and taken by all those concerned.'

Amen-and very well said. And there are probably no dead ones either.

So you think that it's Ok to have a 'unique selling point' that insults the dead of both the British and the Dutch -Belgian armies?
That has nothing to do with writing a book with errors in it. If someone spends a lot of time digging up primary sources then I can live with a few 'honest' mistakes. That's not quite the same thing as putting something like "Waterloo, the German Victory" in the title.

There's one plain fact that any author, or for that matter anyone with a passing interest in the Hundred Days, can agree on-
Waterloo was an Allied victory.

Amen Steve,

I feel that if PH had designed the book like adkin in one volume in large format with an emphasis on the Prussian/German side of the campaign. He could have called it, "Waterloo, through German eyes", or similar. Left the nasty anti-Wellington sentiments out of it and focused on the history seen via the German archives, eyewitness accounts and studies. He would have been lauded as a hero to all Germany and probably more, but instead he has alienated many people, destroyed his credibility and dumped on many people who he has been rude to for simply asking question…not good form there.

Shane

blackmamba 18 Feb 2008 1:36 a.m. PST
… so outside of Blucher its probable that there wasn't a Prussian who didn't think the same as PH …

Interesting that the only Prussian who reportedly trusted Wellington was an "eccentric" soldier.

This naturally begs the question, was Blucher supporting Wellington because he trusted him, gave his word for support, or had no other realistic option for defeating Napoleon quickly?

All this talk about the books of PH have got me thinking maybe I should read them to determine what he does actually assert. Of course it would mean givng up my ACW, FIW, and SYW reading for awhile, but I just may do so.

This naturally begs the question, was Blucher supporting Wellington because he trusted him, gave his word for support, or had no other realistic option for defeating Napoleon quickly?

None of the above, he did it because a rabbit called Harvey told him to.

So you think that it's Ok to have a 'unique selling point' that insults the dead of both the British and the Dutch -Belgian armies?

Boy are you easy to insult….

Advance warning, don't read my forthcoming book, "Battle of Britain – The Polish Victory"

@ Un Ami: During the 1840th Prussian officers of the General Staff found when writing the history of the Waterloo campaign some discrepancies between Britsh and Prussian sources.

1) When did Wellington know that the Prussians were under attack? Here the Prussian corps commander Zieten claimed that he had sent a messanger very early to Wellington, (who then wasted valuable time). However, this issue was resolved by Pflug-Hartung around 1900, who showed, that Zieten did not send a messanger to Wellington and therefore Wellingtons behaviour could not be critisised, but Zieten's.

2)The other (still unresolved) point is: Did Wellington promise Blücher support and if yes, did he know that he would not be able to deliver this support in time?

From my limited reading on this subject it is not clear for me whether the following points were issues during 1850-1900:

3) Did Wellington modify the Siborn model of Waterloo so that the Prussian contribution was significantly decreased?

4) Did Wellington modify later offical documents to achive the same goal.

Ulenspiegel