"Peter Hofschroer" Topic

@Ulenspiegel

Excellente !

Many thanks ! It is exactly the question that I did ask.

So, clearly a complaint "in the era" from Ziethen, but it appears one generated for his own purposes.

Then perhaps a complant "in or near the era" on the promise of support and the honesty of such a promise if made.

For the second item listed, do you from your memoire know of whom this topic was first raised ? Was the quesition posed by the General Staff authors or did a participant in the campagne raise the topic ? (or were the authors all participants ?)

Again, with many thanks,

- votre ami

Steve J-what I think about his books has nothing to do with the point I was making.
But that you could feel so strongly about them as to assert that they belittle the ultimate sacrifice of one side of the combatants shows how polarised opinions can become on the subject of Hofschroer.
If you liked his spin on Waterloo that much I bet you are going to love the soon to be published book-The Wars against Napoleon:Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars by General Franceshi and Ben Weider( I have no idea as to whether they are the authors real names!)
The USP of this is ,as I understand it, that Napoleon was a misunderstood pacifist who never actually started any conflict and went to war reluctantly as a last resort.

Birds of a feather flock together: this nonsense from Weider is just like "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." All taking a line or two out of context to "prove" the conclusion they started with – abouta s well done as Kevin is neutral!

@ Un Ami

I have given up to follow this stuff two years ago and have lost some of my scanned papers in a HD crash, so I can only offer a very limited assistance.

If you have (on-line) access to "War in History" you can get PH's articles and the responses of his opponents. You will find a lot of sources and details about the various authors in the 19th century in these papers and in the reference sections.

If you do not have access drop an email, I could send them as PDF.

Ulenspiegel

@Ulenspiegel

Thank you again, dear colleague.

You have provided the perfect start for me to look in to answers on the topic. You did save me many many hours of agony with English and German searching !

Again, many thanks,

- votre ami

@Un Ami

You wrote: "You did save me many many hours of agony with English and German searching"

Maybe you simply substitute one pain with another :-)))))

Ulenspiegel

Un ami, there is for example Clausewitze Campaign of 1815.
Available in a French translation as well as in the German.
He was in the campaign, and was critical of Wellington failing to support the Prussians on the 16th. He clearly had the impression Wellington was promising to do so – despite the fact Wellington knew it was impossible.

Muffling is rather empty of specifics and provides no real pointers either way. That's either proof of a conspiracy, alzheimers, or proof of no conspiracy depending on ones choice of opinion.

It will indeed be more illuminating to take your approach than zero in on one political document, that in short note form read "Dear King, …list of thanks to all officers known at court, related to government ministers or their mistresses, and brown nosers with Horse Guards; regardless of their military competence….praise of the foreigners to make the medal ceremonies pleasant…make sure it sounds like my actions won the battle".
And why would he have written anything else. Wellington was an excellent politician & diplomat as well as a capable General. He wouldn't have lasted long in service if he hadn't been writing such guff since day 1. I think its called context.

"Boy are you easy to insult…."

I didn't say 'I' was insulted- I'm getting on a bit but I definitely wasn't at Waterloo.

Pretty sure of your opinions mate, that's all I can say.

I personally would like to thank Peter for his admission that I am his intellectual and scholarly equal because of his attempts to get to me on this august miniaturespage website. Of course he's wrong in thinking that, but I will defend to the death his right to think that I need to know what he has to say and that what I think about the Prussians or whatever, might be hogwash, but he has every right to debate me on this forum. And if Bill objects, it's ok too.

If you can keep this thread going for another 100 posts I'll make a donation to the Autism society.Posts must contain more than one word and must either be an attack on a fellow poster (thinly veiled or otherwise) or impart some gem of arcane and thoroughly useless point of amateur scholarship.

Keep up the good work guys!

Ok. Vic1234, let me try this.

A Forum discussion with Kevin is like trying to pick up a ‘Milk Dud' on a warm summer day. At first you get a bunch of brown stuff all over then things get sticky and all gummed up.

According to the manufacturer, the word "Milk" in the name refers to the large amount of milk in the product and the word "Duds" came about because the original aim of having a perfectly round piece was found to be impossible. See above!

Oh, yea, the topic – I like Hoffy. He is very funny for a British person!

Steve

I vote we let him back and those who enjoy his abuse can read him and the rest of us can just stifle him.

>>>>That's what he did in the two books.<<<<

Not really, he focused on the accusations, the history of the campaign was secondary, at best.

>>>>That's what he did in the two books.<<<<

The books were presented well I will admit.

>>>>So you're hung up on the title, the meaning of which has been ad nauseam?<<<<

Yeah, I think his title is prevocative.

>>>>I didn't notice anything "nasty" in regards to his interpretation of the data in both books<<<<

Then you did not read them thoroughly enough, his constant and relentless tirade on Wellington and his perceived agenda is very obvious. I find it all pretty nasty seeing Wellington is not alive to defend himself.

>>>>I don't see how that's possible, being he isn't German, and Joe Public's not going to care.<<<<

We care….it seems

>>>>How did he do that? You're previous posts indicate you don't trust the accuracy of the books due to PH's behavior, that's an inane reason. Hollins too acts like a jerk at times, but I ignore is partisanship and focus on the research.<<<<

You seem to miss the point, acting like a jerk is good reason not to like the person nor purchase their books, if they cannot remain aloof how can you trust their research as not being tainted by bias, agenda driven or worse??? PH obviously had an agenda which got up everyone's nose, he found an angle and used it. Then when questioned about it replied in the most deplorable way. Hollins just bluntly slaps mostly the same person in the face and hijacks threads constantly all the time, you like research from someone who does that on a personal bitter level? I don't. He is a good researcher as in PH but they really should remain above the pale and ignore it all, they don't…

Regards,
Shane

I am more of an American Civil War and World War II geek with a healthy interest in the Napoleonic period. On the Napoleonic threads, I must say that I am blown away by the acrimony not just between posters but also published authors. You never see that between authors in the ACW blogs and rarely between posters. What is it about this period?

Because the Napoleonic period was very nationalistic with virtually every nation of Europe included in the struggle. Even the USA was involved. With the wars fought on national lines were have had 200 years of authors producing work, research and data from the period also along nationalistic lines. As much of this research and data has a bias towards one particular nation authors, historians and enthusists will question this research. Everyone has a stake in the fight on nationalistic lines and it will never change. Remember, the Napoleonic wars were really the first wars of the modern era to be fought with ones pride in his own nation and its cause. 2 hundred years later nothing has changed and those who come from the USA or Australia simply pick a side.

Thats my take on it anyway for what its worth.

Shane

"What is it about this period?"

Well, I will suggest a few things (in a general "history")

The Napoleonic Wars period was not a main topic of interest among professional historians in the U.S. for decades. One of the reasons for the success of David Chandler's "Campaigns of Napoleon" was because there were few available "in print" Napoleonic books (especially about Napoleon) at the time (1960s). As wargaming picked up in the U.S. in the 60s and into the 70s there was more interest in Napoleonic-related information. Most U.S. historians ignored the period (which is not the case with the American Civil War and WWII).

The resulting "gap" between available information and desired information was filled by amateur historians, wargamers, wargames rule designers, and others. It wasn't until relatively recently that more Napoleonic-related books were written by professional historians (in the U.S.), but the thirst for more information was not quenched. A cottage industry of amateur historians and writers sprang up to satisfy the demands for more information. The success of Empires, Eagles, & Lions and several Napoleonic-related Ospreys was due to the hunger for information for the period. Many German, Russian, and other sources had not been tapped into yet. Of course, web sites such a TMP, Napoleon Series, etc. started to fill the gap within the last ten years.

The end result is various turf wars over certain aspects of Napoleonic history such as artillery. In the ACW and WWII periods there is much more published information, much of it by professional historians. The Napoleonic Wars (at least in the U.S.) has been relegated to the back-burner. Some authors are fighting to be "big fish" in a "small pond."

We are just beginning to see new information from German, Russian, and other sources that was previously not available. Some of the existing sources, especially by American authors, is beginning to be questioned or updated. Some authors that are not professionally trained in the field of history/military history and also do not have a working command of French, German, Russian, etc. tend to rely on traditional and English-based sources and thus defend turf rather than welcome new information as it becomes available. If you publish a book and then new information comes out--you must either fight to the last round defending the status quo or adapt and revise.

I add that there are many wargamers who have built up quite a store of knowledge and many wargamers from countries such as Germany, Russia, Italy, etc. that are helping add to our store of knowledge because they are fluent in the appropriate languages and have access to recently available archival sources and Web-based sources. There are also some English-speaking authors who command a foreign language (i.e. approach enough fluency to be able to do archival research) that have been accessing the archives of Germany, Russian, etc. and providing new information.

Some of the amateur historian/wargamer authors have achieved paragon status and have followers/supporters that defend their works without critical review. Anyone that questions the status quo or a favorite amateur author faces the backlash that occurs on open-Internet forums (especially in unmoderated forums where lack of civility can erupt unchecked). The success of many of Scott Bowden's Napoleonic books was because he filled a gap and did so for a primarily wargamer audience. Some of his books have received negative critical reviews, but his core market views them differently (and many wargamers still perceive these works as valuable information for wargaming). Wargamers generally are looking for information that academic histories often do not provide (although there are exceptions). It is much more difficult for an amateur to publish a book in the ACW or WWII periods (although there have been some excellent exceptions by some talented authors).

I'm sure there are other explanations.

Nafziger also played a crucial role in researching and gathering data from German and Russian sources and was once the only Westerner allowed into the russian archives from memory.

"Nafziger also played a crucial role in researching and gathering data from German and Russian sources and was once the only Westerner allowed into the russian archives from memory."
Shane,

I can only presume that you mean archival material to the Napoleonic period or perhaps you have never heard of the late Prof John Erikson.

Your thesis on the bitterness of the Nappy crowd being due to 19th century nationalism doesn't hold much water. I've yet to see this much petty rancour on a board relating to the Great War or the Colonial period, where there is far more contemporary resonance to many of the issues in conflict. Discussions on the various Civil wars from English to Spanish, inherently more bitter than the Napoleonic Wars, rarely creates this much childish angst.

My twopennies worth.

Vic,

You are correct; I do mean the archival material of the Napoleonic period. And no, I have not heard of John Erikson, please elaborate if you wish.

Nafziger, during the 80's and 90's spent much time researching and collecting data and publishing books on the Napoleonic period especially with regards to the later campaigns and especially the Russian army. He also published (self) publications on all the armies of the period, their organization, histories, make-up and histories that no one had ever read about previously. I was lucky enough to purchase every book and data sheet he published on the Napoleonic period and treasure its contents.

If you think my thesis on 19th century nationalism does not hold much water then that is your problem. I believe it does and so do many others. The problem with the Napoleonic period is that for well over 100 years 99% of the data was from English sources and was for all this time the perceived wisdom of truth. The last 20-30 years with writers like Nafziger, Gill, PH and a few others the views have begun to change and people are questioning the data and history we have been led to believe. These men stand out as persons who have tried hard to bring about previously unknown or un-translated information which IS changing our perceptions of that Period.

The reasons I say it is at a nationalistic level is because for example British speaking authors, historians and enthusiasts have had a perception of the wars based on their own study predominated by English speaking historians and authors over the last 200 years.

German speaking historians and authors etc have been few and far between but those that are around have access to information and take for granted this data which most English speaking historians, authors and enthusiasts never even knew existed…

The same can go for Russians, Austrians and any other nation of Europe. As "Lest we Forget" previously said, :

>>>>add that there are many wargamers who have built up quite a store of knowledge and many wargamers from countries such as Germany, Russia, Italy, etc. that are helping add to our store of knowledge because they are fluent in the appropriate languages and have access to recently available archival sources and Web-based sources. There are also some English-speaking authors who command a foreign language (i.e. approach enough fluency to be able to do archival research) that have been accessing the archives of Germany, Russian, etc. and providing new information.<<<<

When historians, authors and enthusiasts have deep mind sets based on already learnt knowledge they acquire a pretty dogged determination to repel new evidence which may jeopardize their believed truths, if you don't believe me then you obviously have your head in the sand.

Then there are the American authors, historians and enthusiasts who are stomped on by mostly by their British counterparts as obviously being amateur, wrong or downright incapable of writing about the Napoleonic as if they do not have that right!! They fail to remember most Americans have generations that go back to every part of Europe over the last 200 years and even though they are Americans they are proud of their own heritage which may come from England, Germany, Russia, Austrian and any other European state. "Some" Brit's seem to forget this and simply see them as dumb amateur Americans. I am yet to see a German, or a Russian or a Frenchman or any other European stomp on the research of American authors and historians and there is a reason for that, 99% of all books and research has come from Britain over the last 200 years for us English speakers, simple as that.

I have witnessed deep resentment by English persons against Americans right here on TMP, a deep anger that they dare to involve themselves in research, gathering data and having the audacity to print their findings!! I am an aussie and sit outside all this but it is plain to see and angers me greatly. I get sick and tired of the tired ranting and self aggrandisement of many British authors about their role in the Nappy wars and how they put down any Yank who comes onto the scene but you know what? I find the Yank authors give a balance that otherwise would NOT be there if they had not put pen to paper with such men as Nafziger, Elting, Bowden, Kiley and many others. Why should they NOT be considered as equal to anyone else writing for this period? Because some Brits don't like it as they are saying things they do not agree with because they have grown up knowing differently via their own historians and authors.

Shane

oohh, and as much as I am going to get flammed for this and slapped around for my comments I really don't give a rats, I am telling it how it is and how most of us aussies see it over here.

As much as I despise PH as an individual and his attitude I still applaud him for fighting agianst the perception of Wellington being bigger than life and unaccountable for being a human and making mistakes or worse like a human being. I might not agree totally with his portrail of Wellington but their is "some" truth to it I believe. to what degree I believe this I cannot tell you but it is worth listening to at least.

Shane

Shane,

The late Prof Erickson was author of three of the great English language histories of the Soviet participation in the Second World War, namely 'The Road to Stalingrad', 'The Road to Berlin' and his seminal work The Soviet High Command. They did much to redress the populist dreck that came out of self serving German memoirs and hacks like Paul Carel.

Erickson had extensive access to the Soviet Archives from the 1960s. If one man can be said to have shaped much of the popular understanding of the GPW, its the late Prof Erickson. Erickson's work is all the more remarkable because a number of the personages he was writing about were still alive and the cold war was at its height.

Here's an obit. A truly great historian.

link

that is amazing Vic, thank you for the link. Opened my eyes a great deal. I will look out for his books.

Shane

It might be worth pointing out, before we all nod with sage like agreement, on the constant bitterness or poor behavior of the Nappy Forum that the only active thread displaying any upsetness here is this one.
A thread started by some one who obviously doesn't visit the forum complaining about the baning of someone who Admin baned for misbehavior.
Eh?

One other point to remember is that behaviour on forums such as this one are seldom reflective of the behaviour exibited by individuals in the real world-but thats a whole different topic for discussion

To the best of my knowledge, George Nafziger has never set foot in a Russian archive. To the best of my knowledge, George has never claimed that he did.

As an example, George's 1812 volume, is based upon, among many other sources, French and German translations of Russian works, as well as some Russian published documents. I do not believe George has a working knowledge of Russian – he has never stated, to the best of my knowledge, that he has a knowledge of the Russian language.

Steve

@Steven H Smith

One did wonder about this visiting of Soviet archivs, as M. Nafizger is an officier in the US Naval service.

For a moment, I did think I should have asked of the Frenches to visit the SHAT in those years. It would have been a nice trip if the DST watching men were also interested in the Napoléon era and could help form the research requests !

:-)

- votre ami

Page 4. The man's gone but the thread lingers on.
donald

I studied at Edinburgh University in the 1980's, and although I didn't take any of Prof. Erickson's classes I did see him in the Students' Union (Potter Row, rather than Teviot for anyone familiar with the Uni.) having a drink with a Soviet general in full uniform.

I believe he chaired an annual discussion forum involving military personnel from both sides of the old Iron Curtain.

PS it was the general in uniform, not the professor.

Mon ami,

Some day I will relate my 1972 Moscow experiences on a similar topic!

Keep posting my friend – you have a legion of TMP supporters.

Steve

Keep the Internet free of ‘Milk Dud' posts!

keep the internet free of arrogance and self righteousness !!

Shane,

I did not intend for you to leave the TMP Forum. If that is your decision, so be it.

Sincerely,

Steve

Keep the Internet free of ‘Milk Dud' posts!

@Steven H Smith

"1972 Moscow"
It is funny, but in this year I also did go to Moscow, for the first time. My father did take me, then a boy hoping to soon be a young man.
It was to see the Kremlin and the Museums and of really good Symphony and Opera that we did go, because I recall that my mother did wish instead to go to the Crimea for the shore-line.
It was then that I first became a great interested in the Napoléon ere, and did paid only the appropriate attention to the souvenirs of the the war against the fascistes, and resolved to teach my self a little of the French language.

- votre ami

Ohh Steve, did not know you cared so much, but I think I will stay around and hall monitor the arrogant types around here.

Mon ami,

How interesting! I was there in May of 1972. When were you there?

Steve

Keep the Internet free of ‘Milk Dud' posts!

@Steven H Smith

After the summer training of the régiment of my father, but as the season of the Opera and Symphony did start – I will say it was Octobre, as we were home for the day used for the memoire of the révolution of the soviets.

As I am sure you will know, most Russians were neither communists nor would one really want to speak with such as these. But I recall it was always a great strain on my father to parade for the day to recall their révolution, for we did all ways keep the Orthodox Church in our Faith and practise, and were of a family that did not suffer in Stalin times only because of our provincial remoteness, our lack of money wealth, but great wealth of long service, and profounde obscurity and un-importance.

It was only after this parade that I did ever see my father drunk. He and and few other officers and old sergeants would drink the next two days without seace except for unconciousness. And as a boy I was told to stay away from them then.

So, this a little view of the life of those years. I do think the Lent fast has turned me to a memoire writer.

But we were always with his régiment for the day of the parade.

- votre ami

As an interesting note, this morning I've been reading an article in the latest Millitary Illustrated magazine from Barry Van Danzing who confronts directly some of Hofschroer claims about Waterloo and the 100 days campaign being a german victory, Barry claims it was much more decisive as Peter says and that the Prussians had not as much importance as Peter says.

Seems the article is a short resume from his book "Who won Waterloo?", so the latest word about Waterloo is not yet said though I have the feeling that in the end everything will remain the same, that Waterloo and the 100 days campaign was an allied victory that could not have been won without the help of all Prussians, British and Belgian-Holland allies contributing.

And one Spanish general, assisting Wellington.
donald

Actually, Palafox, do you know if there were any Spanish marching with Napoleon in Nord? Not whole units (I know that) but small groups, prominent individuals?
donald

Not as far as I'm aware. There were some fighting at Leipzig but not in 1814 nor 1815.

I read the Van Danzig article – it was interesting but seemed, I dont know, a tad "vitriolic"? perhaps that was editing for the magazine.

Anyhoo, it was an interesting riposte. Havent had a chance to check his sources.

Ive read this Hof… chappies stuff on Waterloo, it was jolly entertaining, didnt agree with any of his more extreme views, but there you go. In fact i thought it was a little strained and puerile, but that might just be his writing style. I also had a go at his osprey on Lutzen. By Thor that was boring, even for an Osprey campaign.

Thats my opinion, and by God, didnt several thousand Prussians die to give me the right to voice it?

I say let the fella back on, from what I have seen his posts are rather entertaining and its always good to see an academic make a complete tumshie of themselves.

And as to any American who would call Wellington a mediocre politician – as a British Roman Catholic, I say it takes a brave man and a great statesman to emancipate an opressed section of society – just ask Abraham Lincoln.

Any attempt to paint Waterloo as anything other than an Allied victory, or, indeed, the closest run thing you ever saw in your life, is just sensasionalism ( or at worst polemic ).

Te Salute

Jings, Spellcheck please! s-e-n-s-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-s-m

Thanks, Palafox.
donald

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.''

Thank you for that. Hofschroer says Wellington ignored the Prussian contribution in his Waterloo dispatch. We read it. We find Wellington gives the same, or possibly more praise to the Prussians than to his own countrymen.

What has 'protocol' to do with the price of fish?

Condottiere
''I…was merely pointing out Cacadore's bias and a response to his accusations''

Where? Where have you pointed out my 'bias' or given a 'response' to my 'accusations'?

''Cacadore isn't exactly the type who'd be satisfied with any answer unless it showed his beloved Wellington in a positive light''.

Again, what answer? I've never seen you give me one. What can you mean?

["Nafziger also played a crucial role in researching and gathering data from German and Russian sources and was once the only Westerner allowed into the russian archives from memory."]

Shane – quite a few western historians used the Soviet archives, among them my maternal grandfather, Donald W. Mitchell:

link

I'm pretty sure that George Nafziger did not. Many of the archival sources he used were provided to him by friends, and he may or may not have used the archives in question himself, nor done the translations. Some yes, some no.

mate your absolutely correct, I emailed George himself who explained to me he had not been to the Russian archives at all. The information I received was from a friend who was adamant he had, obviously he war wrong.

I retract my previous statement fully.

Regards,
Shane

Shane – What a Gent!

You bumped a thread about you.

Fail.

Much like the Prussians at Waterloo, Peter inevitably shows up.

I have no dog in this fight and feel no ill will toward any of the authors. I still don't understand the acrimony. I will read Peter's books as well as the work of his detractors with an open mind.

One point: I have seen the comment that it is bogus to list a work in the bibliography if the author has not read every word in the original language. All my academic training tells me that is completely wrong. Any work that is referenced, even for just a passage, needs to be included.