"David Hamilton-Williams, fake or truth ?" Topic

Hi all,

I wanted to ask what other authors, historians and enthusiasts think of David Hamilton-Williams and the books he has written. I own them both and actually enjoyed them and was delighted with the depth of detail and perspectives he gives in these books. However, after much hype and dissention amongst many prominent and respected authors and historians over the validity and trustworthiness of this mans books I began to relegate both books to the back of my book shelf, thinking that I must not read them anymore or trust their contents. I retained them all this time and refrained from actually throwing them in the bin as some had suggested. I took them both out again last night and flicked through them and still can see what seems to be very detailed and well presented information and would like to read their contents once again…

link

link

I would like to know from those in the know what is wrong with the books, what is he lying about (if anything) and lastly, what should I do with these books? I know in the Amazons reviews a few people have some really nice things to say about the books but one person cites that the information supposedly taken from the Hanover archives is pretty much made up, lied about or taken from other sources and lied about.

Please help me understand the entire dram of all this once and for all.

Regards,
Shane

I don't pretend to have the depth of knowledge of the original sources that it would take to determine if H-W invented much of his detail.

Personally, like you I very much enjoyed the books. If they are fabricated, they are at least fabricated in a detailed and common sense sort of way that corresponds with my idea of what probably "ought to" have happened in 1815.

So I still read my Waterloo book from time to time and enjoy it.

You might take a moment to read the reviews on Amazon. They might answer your question for you.

The Amazon reviews say nothing about the controvercy surrounding Hamilton-Williams.

"The Amazon reviews say nothing about the controversy surrounding Hamilton-Williams"
Yes and neither does the rest of this thread. :oP
What are the titles of the books and whats the controversy?
Both links come up empty.
regards
max

<<The Amazon reviews say nothing about the controvercy surrounding Hamilton-Williams.>>

Actually they do talk about it. You just have to click on the right link:

link

Thanks for the link Paul.
Max

I have the book although didn't read yet… but if (and mind the IF) the comments on his footnotes are correct his book would be totally worthless. I know that is difficult to depart from your most cherised hypothesis, or to show the reader those documents that defy your interpretation of facts. There is a big temptation to 'forgot' a piece of relevant information. But you should not, must not, to yield or your credibility as historian will be, forever, in destroyed.

History is about confidence. The reader makes an act of faith that the historian is providing him with an accurate, fact-related and documentary based, interpretation-research of the actual sources. If the historian breaks that tacit pact and makes up his sources, even just one, all the building of knowledge he has rise will crumble. I remember a famous case -well, for historians is famous- of a guy, back in the late 70's, that wrote a heavily footnoted book with thousand of references. His work was, when published, celebrated as a ground-breaking book, outstanding, and so on and so forth. Though, when other fellow historians checked his sources, they discover that he had misquoted or misunderstood, probably not on purpose, a vital piece of evidence. All the sudden, his book was considered a piece of crap -even if the rest of the material was still correct- and his interpretations came under a severe attack.

I am the first to accept that Wellington's role in Napoleonic Wars as a whole and in Waterloo Campaign in particular needs a reappraisal that put aside all the hero-worship bias of XIXth and many XXth Century scholars. But to fabricate a case using made up sources is not the way to do it.

I that what williams did? make-up sources? it seems in one of the reviews this is exactly what they reviewer is saying…

You are right, a great book becomes useless even if tainted with one lie, that's what I want to find out if this is what he did in fact do.

Regards,
Shane

The detalles in the review about the Hanovre archivs is interesting.
So, the author did read the detaile sin the Beamish, and then say they were found by him self in the archivs. That is not too nice.
But what is more interesting is that the Beamish references did not align perfectly to the archivs. For the Beamish is the well-known work on the King's Légion, written in 1830th.
Here is one of the volumes on the google books :
link
One supposes that Beamish was no fraud, as there were many living to tell him of a complaint.
So one supposes that the Hanovre archivs did change their numbers or lose some items in the last 180 years. Not a surprise.

But if the sources of Beamish were good, and the currtn author did take form Beamish (while giving a false reference to the archivs, it is still good detailes, but with the wrong "parentage".

Interesting, one might think. But likely better to read the original sources for our selves in any case.

- un ami

The best bit about this book are the maps and drawings showing troop positions.
They have one in particular which shows the postion of the Prusians arrival relative to the French positions.
I dont think these are fabricated and they show quite clearly why Napoleon was done for when they arrived

thx Un ami,

that is the impression I have got so far, he used correct and accurate information but displayed it with untruthful reference points?

Shane

I, for one, am hesitant to take at face value the criticism of an anonymous individual on Amazon.com. But that's just me. Mr. Hamilton-Williams has placed his name on the book and listed his sources. Those sources may well be made-up, but I am not going to accept the word of a nameless poster "who lives near Hanover" on an e-commerce site. I guess I'm crazy because I generally look for a little rigor in my literary criticism.

By the way, I live near Hanover as well. I have looked at the archives and all of Mr. Hamilton-Williams citations are 100% correct. I guess you believe me too.

I'm not trying to be snippy, but that post on Amazon is not worth the virtual page it is not printed on. I'm also not defending Mr. Hamilton-Williams, I'm defending what we should accept as the bare minimum requirement for legitimate literay criticism.

@Shane

Yes, dear colleague, I think that is really all that one can say of the complaints as I did read them. And then, as @Hastatl does say, the complaint itself may not even have a merit.
The Beamish is an excellente source one would think. I do not know why one would not say "MSS This-or-that, as quoted in Beamish". It would have been no harm at all.

It is an interesting case, since the complaint seems to a rise from a desire to take from this author the uniqueness of his emphasis on the Prussiens – so may be not pure lacking in interest.

I really do not know.

- votre ami

If I recall correctly, Dave Hollins says he took a personal part in the exposing of David Hamilton-Williams, so I suspect we'll get his side of the story soon – and he may be able to clarify who this anonymous checker of the Hanovarian archives actually is.

Though Hastati has made the good point that even if we know who the Hanovarian is, we still have to believe at face-value that he did check, and that it isn't HIM making it up. Which, in the end, is the same with anything we read in history books, as we're mostly not in a position to physically check every source in every book we read.

So that means that *being considered trustworthy* is a vital characteristic of an historian.

A recent revisionist historian of the 19th century New Zealand Wars, who is very much feted in the halls of academia and the media here, is mistrusted by many military historians because some of his comments on military subjects are just plain wrong (the most astounding claim being that the Maori invented trench warfare).

I am stunned that ten years after thios happened, the word has not gone round!

H-W was having an exchange with Peter Hofschroer in First Empire (and ironically enough, there were plenty of people backing H-W against PH!). In the pre-Internet days, these exchanges happened once every two months. It was these, which actually prompted PH to go through lots of the sources and started his Waterloo project. The two had met before many years previously in a court case, which finished up with HW getting a conviction for obtaining money by deception.

Anyway, I happened to be off to the British Library a few days later and made a note of one citation made by HW, which was the cornerstone of one of his FE letters. It was supposed to show that Prussian comms ran through Mons – in fact, it was an 1817 letter from the British Foreign Secretary telling W to get out of occupied Paris as the natives were getting restless. As it was in isolation in his letter, it confirmed to me instantly the crux of Peter's arguments about H-W making citations up.

About this time, H-W's second book came out and I read it. What a pile of tosh – in a pattern I would see again in other books, it was long on claims and short on evidence, but backed supposedly by "citations" from Germanic works, which I knew not to be true and then came the key claim that material came from the Central Austrian Archives in Vienna. It does not exist! I wrote a lengthy review in Age of Nap magazine taking the second book to bits and thingns really started to move. The AoN publisher received a letter from H-W's lawyers threatening libel – it was not long after Robert Maxwell, so I was well aware of what was going on. The AoN publisher got Paddy Griffiths to do another review – PG was great: on the surface it seemed to placate HW, but was brilliant when you read bertween the lines.

That letter had also threatened me, but they did not write to me directly. I was sent a copy by AoN and promptly rang his lawyer to tell him that I would see them in court. They never pursued it of course. However, more importantly, H-W's letter laid claim to being a Baronet (hereditary Sir title) complete with arms and claims to various degrees. It turned out that using this and taking up the Bonapartist fantasies had ingratiated him with Weider and he was head of the INS in Europe complete with all these titles. A few checks showed that he did not posses the title or degrees. Peter chipped in with criminal info and John Cook also did some research. It is of course much easiert to explain this character to the wider public than getting bogged in complex arguments about sources. The arms were perhaps the most amusing – the quarters used a specific Williams symbol, which belonged to a baronet in North Wales. I contacted him and he told me that he had already been aware that a separate complaint had been made to the House of Lords Baronetage committee about H-W and this "baronetcy". Well, H-W – let's reveal his identity – he is really David Cromwell of East Grinstead. The real Baronet Williams was also a lifelong chum of the Marquis of Anglesey, who had also been contacted by H-W/Cromwell, and the Baronet told me that the Marquis had had "a sense of humour failure". (military expression for getting rather irate).

Word had also come through that H-W had ordered a load of books from a well-known specialist in the US, but denied ever receiving them. Peter and I put our suspicions to the police, who raided his home – and found the books. As he instantly, the police gave him a caution and the books were returned to the seller. Todd Fisher and the then Nap Society of America had also invited H-W over, but had growing suspicions and I was able to give them the key info to cancel the invitation.

The publishers of H-W's books were also seeing a lot of this and cancelled his contract. The label Arms & Armour (then owned by Cassell) was axed soon after to end the embarassment of the hype surrounding his books.

While this is an extreme example, many of you may appreciate why PH and I make such a thing of checking citations and telling the truth about bibliographical refs. In addition, anyone, who think it is clever to make snide remarks about Osprey will get the response that H-W was in hardback.

H-W crawled back under his stone, although he persists in using the name and the ####### had the temerity to write to the Daily Mail site about the Armed Forces Memorial recently opened in the UK (where my father is among the 14,000 listed). Unfortunately, some publisher has republished this nonsense and so it remains in circulation., However, it is best used to prop up the wonky table or keep the door open.

The man is a proven liar and even superficial checks will show that he was making claims up and inventing sources.

Interesting about the man but I still loved his Waterloo book. It is a long time since I read it but I thought it was less anglo-centric and gave due regard to the Prussian participation.

I will probably be pilloried for saying that.

Thank you, DH. Very informative.

I'm still sort of glad I've got H-W's books, but even gladder I got them cheap at a "remaindered" bookshop. Now I know why they were there! I shall reposition them on my shelves next to Sharpe and further away from Bowden & Tarbox, Gill and Adkin.

Yours,

The Most Potentate Supreme Archbishop of Jupiter and all its Moons.

I might re-shelf my H-W between 'Crime & Punishment' & 'Robbery under Arms'.
Does anyone know where the old Son of a Baronet is now?
donald

Bought them all at the time and read them. It was one of those cases where I kept thinking "are you sure about this HW?", but I've never been to the archives so had no way of knowing. Glad you found him out Dave Hollins.

Erik

@Dave Hollins

How strange. Thank you.

"I happened to be off to the British Library a few days later and made a note of one citation made by HW, which was the cornerstone of one of his FE letters. It was supposed to show that Prussian comms ran through Mons – in fact, it was an 1817 letter from the British Foreign Secretary"

Did you ever know, as did the writer amongst the Amazon reviews who found the Beamish, what was the real source for the idea that the Prussiens lines ran through Mons ?
Or did you find that they communicated else where in stead ?

- un ami

No, I didn't get into the detail of the Waterloo book.

I've got both of them too, and will gladly join Broglie in the pillory; but only for the same reason. Exactly the same thoughts occurred as BigE4NFL makes above; and I also got a suggestion of the smell of rodent when looking at his footnotes. Not from those supposedly from various archives, which looked meticulous (and, as has been stated, do depend upon readers having confidence in the integrity of scholars, historians and academics), but from the ones which referred to a forthcoming work by the man himself dealing with Murat and "the final betrayal". I must admit I've got a certain immediate suspicion of anyone with one of those double-barrelled names*, since in academic and other "cultural" fields in Britain many people occupy positions to which their abilities and qualifications do not entitle them; it seems our esteemed author has recognised this too, but in his case has had the confidence to play tricks with it.

Is there any truth in the story he tells about Napoleon, on his return from Elba, finding a pact between Bourbon France and Britain to attack Prussia?

* I used to think it signified someone who wasn't quite sure who their father was, but knew it was a choice of two….

This has been very interesting to me. It is one reason that I, lately, like to mention books I am looking into buying on TMP to see if some of our learned members have any negatives like in the books mentioned here.

These books have been books that I have considered buying and then asked myself, "Do I really want another book on Waterloo?" My answer was no and now I am glad.

BUT, if one already owns the books and enjoys them, I would say, read with the understanding of what it is and don't use it as a basis in passing along information to others. Why pitch them if you enjoy them. Just know what you have.

@Dave Hollins

"No, I didn't get into the detail of the Waterloo book."

That is a shame. It was the question of our colleague @Shane : what is wrong with the books.

You did tell us that you and your associates have long dis-agreements with the author, and that he did write under a pen name with a false title. Which is may be interesting.

But is not the answer to our good colleague's question.

But, as I did write, it is likely better to read the original sources for our selves in any case.

- un ami

"H-W crawled back under his stone, although he persists in using the name and the ####### had the temerity to write to the Daily Mail site about the Armed Forces Memorial recently opened in the UK (where my father is among the 14,000 listed).:

"David Hamilton-Williams, East Grinstead" continues to be a frequent letter-writer to the Daily Mail, the Times, and a variety of online fora on a variety of odd subjects. Google that for mild, if pointless, entertainment.

Allen

Dave, thank you very much for this interesting feed back. I now totally understand the story. My only question now is, are they still worth having and accept the info within is acurate and truthful or are they not worth the ink used to print them?

p.s. Well done on your work to fix all the wrongs this guy obviously committed, the police raid was a nice touch. You did the Nappy community a great service I feel Dave.

Regards,
Shane.

Basically, you have to take the view that the guy is a fantasist and a liar, so you cannot take anything at face value. It only takes some basic checks if you have access to the cited books to see that things are being invented. Now there may be something accurate or even truly novel in it, but without having the knowledge in the first place, you cannot know. To answer Ami, that is the key problem.

He does use quite a lot from Houssaye and virtually copies Weider's claims about St. Helena in the second book for example, but you cannot know exactly how much is them and how much has been embellished without knowing the works.

I forgot to add the fairly obvious point that A&A gave up on publishing a third volume!

I read it and was initially fascinated by the author's radical interpretations and evidence.

UNTIL

I saw some of his references were another book he had yet to publish. I dunno, something just didn't sound right; wasn't even aware that type of citation was technically allowed.

Anyway, Martin Walker, in a 2004 article for the magazine Nation Interest summed it up quite well (quote):

In 1994, David Hamilton-Williams, an English historian, published Waterloo: New Perspectives, claiming to have delved in the Dutch, German and Belgian sources (and those nationalities provided the bulk of the Duke's army) to give a much fuller account of the battle, particularly on the Duke's left wing where few British troops were posted. He also claimed that Siborne, running out of money to finance his project, "traduced history" by soliciting funds from his wealthier sources, bending his history to suit the vanity of his more generous donors. Finally, and in defiance of the Duke's grumble that Siborne had given too much credit to General Blucher's Prussians, Hamilton-Williams suggested that Siborne was part of a British "conspiracy" to minimize the Prussian role in the joint victory.

In a series of devastating articles in the Napoleonic journal First Empire (numbers 23, 25 and 26) and in the Journal of Army Historical Research, Hamilton-Williams was accused of unfairly blackening Siborne's achievement and inventing his own sources. Visitors to the Hanoverian archives and to the Siborne archives in the British Library were unable to find some of the more dramatic materials he cited, including the private journal of Major George Baring, who commanded the King's German Legion defenders of the central farm of La Haye Sainte until their ammunition ran out and the farm fell. The late Colonel John Elting, West Point's sage on Napoleonic affairs, called the book an "outright fraud." The German military historian Peter Hofschroer (who really had gone through the Dutch and German archives to produce his 1815: The Waterloo Campaign), when asked to specify what was wrong in Hamilton-Williams's book, replied to one inquirer that "from the first page to the last" it was consumed with error.

Warmest regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Has David Hamilton-Williams ever written a defence of his book?

Regards

@Dave Hollins (and @hmgsone)

"Basically, you have to take the view that the guy is a fantasist and a liar, so you cannot take anything at face value. … Now there may be something accurate or even truly novel in it, but without having the knowledge in the first place, you cannot know."

No, a liar may be, but not a fantasie. It appears he did just change the origins of the materials to look more original. But the materials (as far as a complaint has been noted in this discussion) did actually exist. I give another example :

Konrad Ludwig Georg Frieherr v. Baring (1773-1848), then brevet Major, commanding the 6 compagnies of the 2e légère of the King's Légion at La Haye Sainte.
A little bios (English):
link
A more bios (German):
link

Beamish lists his narrative in German:
link
One will assume this was a letter to Beamish from the Frieherr v. Baring, likely based up on his journal de campagne or day-book.

Also here :
Letters from the Battle of Waterloo: Unpublished Correspondence by Allied Officers from the Siborne Papers.
edited by Gareth Glover (2006)
link
One will assume this was the letter to Beamish, copied or sent to Siborne, or a similar letter to Siborne from the Frieherr v. Baring.

So, this will explain why there was not a thing of this in the British Library.

Since both Sibourne and Beamish did publish, it will from thence did the author with incorrect cources get his view from the Frieherr v. Baring.

So, likely not fantasie. Not too original may be, but not fantasie.

Or do I not understand ?

One also sees it is not so very hard to find the original sources for ones self and never have a probleme with these moderne authors.

- un ami

So we do know now that Hamilton-Williams did have some quarrels with Hollins and Hofschroer, thats in itself not very telling, he´s actually in good company.
Dave Hollins did tell us something about his private and business life which might be of interest for people who are interested in these things, but not very helpful to qualify him as author.
He has been called openly a fantassist and liar, his works were described as "outright fraud" or "full of error".

It should be quite easy to produce evidence in the way Pedlow did during the Pedlow/Hofschroer controvery.

There Pedlow did play fair game, he did post Hofschroers analysis,plus the source quoted by Hofschroer.everybody could built his opinion.

Did make Hamilton Williams really a reference to Baring´s private journal or just to Barings waterloo write up published in the hannoverian military journal in 1831, which can be still found on the web?

If the qute was from Baring´s private journal, which evidence is there that such a journal doesn´t exist?

Claims that two people plus a citizen from Hannover did in vain search in the "archives" are not very helpful.
there exists a very active Verein für hannoveranische militärgeschichte, what did these people say about Baring´s journal?

thats in itself not very telling

A person that invents his own past, name and personal history has a very reduced credibility in any research that can't be inmediately checked by the reader. I think it is relevant information.

@CPTN IGLO

Thank you, dear colleague, as you did express the issue better than did I.

The question of a pen-name (in effect I do not see any titre of nobilitie listed with him as I do a google) is not strange at all.

Nor is it strange to see quarrels among academiciens.

And it is exactly as you do say, one will need to see how he does make his references, to see if a complaint as to their form has any merit. Certainly to use the Baring as a source for La Haye Sainte is not strange.

Thank you also for looking for the Baring texte in German, as I was getting a headache from trying to read German and did stop looking.

- un ami

information?
information is for me facts i can build an opinion upon.
To do this I have to check facts.
I would be forced to ask David Hollins how much he actually knows about this man´s family genealogy, I would be forced to check the info´s I get from him. How much time should I waste to become convinced that Hamilton-Williams is actually David Cromwell.
And if I´m finally convinced, can I be sure that cromwell- williams is not perhaps still an exellent writer.
Actually I´m not interested in all that private live .
Perhaps H-W beats his wife, so what?

"New Perspectives" came across to me as a typical piece of sensationalist revisionist history. Although not worthless, in my view it is too agenda driven and polemic to be significant as a historical analysis.

I wonder about the workings of a mind that can claim to have taken information from Source A when it really came from Source B. The information might very well be accurate, in which case the false claim was unnecessary, even gratuitous.
What is going on in that mind? Does it have a grasp of the concept of truth? Can anything it produce be trusted? Does it enjoy fooling people? Is it simply erecting castles in Spain?
Do I feel the urge to be complicit in its construction projects?

@Symbiotic Relationship

"claim to have taken information from Source A when it really came from Source B."

The complaint is not even this much.
The complaint, the proof which is not given specifically, is that the author has taken information from Source A found at Location X, and it is said that someone did now look at Location X and found Source A not there, but instead has found Source A at Location Y"
But it is Source A.

That is why the thing is so strange to me.

Then the whole is wrapped in to the hostile rhetoric of a personal quarrel among academiciens. And we lose much of the ability to even see the complaint and form a judgement about it in a midst a sea of ill-well.

- un ami

But even then, why on earth be dishonest about it? It suggests a casual contempt for the reader at best.

@Symbiotic Relationship

"But even then, why on earth be dishonest about it?"

Yes, exactly so, why ? It seems so strange to do such a thing.

"It suggests a casual contempt for the reader at best."

Yes, I think so also – or that the complaint is with out real merit and the whole thing a negative rhetoric from a personal quarrel.

I will say again, it is all not worth the time to determine, as @IGLOO does say. For the effort needed, one can just go get Source A and read him and not worry about the author nor his ennemies.

:-)

- votre ami

Here is the link to Baring´s write up in the hannoversches militärisches Journal 1831

link

is this the journal quoted by Hamilton Williams or did he indeed make a reference to Barings "private" journal?

more Baring stuff can be found in this book store list(no.5)

link

Its Beiheft Nr 1 u 2 zum Militärwochenblatt 1898.
The author is not Baring, but the subtitle says " a life picture based on the written notes of the deceasad and informations from the family".

You guys are losing the "pespective" on this. People are the same in all sectors of their life – this guy is a fantasist and aliar with a criminal record for offences involving dishonesty (at least he too is consistent!).

Iglo – if Cromwell was a baronet, he would be listed in Burke's Peerage, which he isn't and his arms would be registered at the College of Arms, which they aren't. He does not possess the degrees he claims. So, he fantasises about his life (it is linguistic in that a fantasty is simply made up, whereas a lie is different froma known fact).

I don't know Waterloo, so I cannot comment on the truth or otherwise of anything in his book, but the one check I conducted on a citation in a letter to FE in his argument with PH turned out to be nothing of the sort. Errors can happen in large books, but this was a specific case, produced by him as evidence of his being right – when it was actually totally wrong. From that and his background, I can adduce that he cannot be taken at face value at all.

Ami is right that these things can get covered in the smoke of apparent personal battles and the like, so let me say that I had no axe to grind with H-W per se and I haven't read his Waterloo book, but PH was often muttering about it, so I knew something about it all. However, I was being consistent in putting my legal training to use in looking at his book – I know about bully boys threatening legal action to cover themselkves, but of course H-W picked the wrong person to have a fight with. his behaviour over that was what prompted me to keep going in delving into his background and it wa sthe fantasties there , which were easier for most people to grasp.

It is vital in all these discussions that people tell the truth about where the material is coming from – otherwise it becomes impossible to see what is worthwhile, what might a simple error and what might be some kind of deception. From a personal point of view, there is no point doping original work if other people can get away with making things up.

It was with this in mind that I read and reviewed his second book, the review being published in Age of Napoleon 17 in spring 1995. This was another potboiler claiming new info and demanding that subjects be viewed from "new perspectives". My first comment – ironically enough given recent arguments here – was about bibliographies and McDonnell's maxim that they are aimed at persuading "the non-suspecting reader that the author is a monument of erudition and labouriousness" – 336 bookslisted with the usual Germanic list, but problems with basic German, plus 7 European archives. The footnotes revealed a rather smaller selection, but included documents from Moscow (actually froma recent English book). 9 german works and otherwise, only UK and French materials. The latterw ere actually all that was used. This practice has continued in many recent books and it really is time it stopped. I wrote back in 1995: "Such bibliographies are becoming more prevalent in 'new writing' and the publishers, Armks & Armour are regrettably in danger of bringing themselves into disrepute by publishing such misleading claims". A&A have gone.

A failure to be truthful about sourcing invariably means there will be problems with the narrative, especially as even quotes can be twisted and taken out of context. In fact, the narrative came from recent English language works from the last 30 years or rather Bonapartist works translated into English, but even some worthwhile English language works had gone uncited despite being listed. A heap of citations from Austrian archives were actually simply lifted from Rothenberg.

Then we get the anti-x rant of x was supposedly in the conspiracy to bring Nap down. Metternich's memoirs were cited once, but there was no sign in the bibliography of the 6 accessible biogs of the man. This is key information if you are discussing the diplomacy behind the last years of N's power. Metternich's influence is huge then and in its results, but all this is dismissed as transitory – the same is said of many other Allied personalities. That is just rubbish and displays a complete ignorance of central European politics.

Correspondence between Uk and France was of course in the diplomatic language of the time, namley french, which H-W lacked the capacity to read as there is no citation of it anywhere, despite claims to visited many Uk and French archives. The citations to N's correspondence can be traced back to Chandler or translations of Houssaye and the like. The assessment of the diplomatic manoeuvres essentially is Uk material only as seen through recent secondary sources.

When it came to the secondary material, there was no critical assessment – it reads like Cronin's "I use what i like and reject what I don't". That is the central deceit – this could be a general work on 1813-21 from a Uk perspectiove, but we are bombarded with claims to new research, new facts and new interpretations. He tried to puff up irrelevancies like corespondence with Otto von Habsburg on the origin of the dynatic name instead of reading up on Marmont's role in April 1814 or anything about Metternich. The book is just filled with Nap's own claims about betrayal and a bigging-up of the central man, without any consideration of his ever having suffered a setback pre-1813 or the downside of N's rule. All the usual stuff about betrayals and conspiracies rather than trying to see how each party acted in their own best interests as they saw them. Their "conspiracy" is "proved" by plans for the postwar settlement – much like Yalta, I suppose!

H-W is one of these people, who litters his work with emotove words rather than material evidence, all designed to mislead the reader, such that his own claims are "proof" and his own limited evidence is "conclusive" – repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it. The key chapter is Waterloo and as mentioned above, in this case we have 18 of 31 chapter ciotations for his own first dodgy book.

Then came a lot of legalese nonsense about Habeas Corpus befor he dived into sucking up to Weider by naming Montholon as the guilty man at the start of the chapter and then reproducing Weider before claiming to have uncovered "conclusive evidence to corroborate" Weider, which is just nonsense again since conclusive and corroborative evidence are different things – that "evidence" actually being a string of assumptions.
I ended by saying that it was "bioas and hypoe dressed up as evidence" and that of the book were read widely, the stock of public misinformation would soar. Sadly, it seems to be so.

The problems with this book and its underlying dishonesty are diffgerenty from Waterloo, but still a structure of lies, half-truths and invention.

"why on earth be dishonest about it?" – the problem is usually that the later author has read the material uncited in a secondary work and needs to make it stand up, so it suggests an unwillingness or inability to do the research.

So basically H-W was too lazy or unable to go to the real archives so he cited other previous author's works and pretended to have done the research by adding foot notes to the appropriote archive? and when he could not produce the proper archive listing by box number etc he simply made it up thinking no one would check?

If this is correct then his books are worth nothing more than to be used as door stoppers. This is a pity because they are actually beautiful produced. If this guy had been honest and done his own research we would not have had this controversy over the last 10 years, what a pity…

Thanks for the information Dave and thank you for the citations Un ami so far, this is a very interesting outcome for me.

Regards,
Shane

@Dave Hollins

"a fantasist and a liar with a criminal record for offences involving dishonesty … if Cromwell was a baronet … a citation in a letter to FE … threatening legal action to cover themselkves … making things up … A failure to be truthful … french, which H-W lacked the capacity to read … all designed to mislead the reader … repeat a lie enough times … sucking up to Weider … a structure of lies, half-truths and invention"
All ad hominum. All personal. None backed by an evidence in support of these ideas. Clearly the sorte of ideas that will come from a personal quarrel.

"A heap of citations from Austrian archives were actually simply lifted from Rothenberg." "The citations to N's correspondence can be traced back to Chandler or translations of Houssaye and the like."
Were they correct done in those works ?

"Metternich's influence … is dismissed as transitory" "When it came to the secondary material, there was no critical assessment" "He tried to puff up irrelevancies" "All the usual stuff about betrayals and conspiracies rather than trying to see how each party acted"
This is not a case of a liar or a fantasie, it is an opinion or a conclusion, with which you disagreed.

"I don't know Waterloo, so I cannot comment on the truth or otherwise of anything in his book"
If one may be so bold, the question before us here is what is the amount of truth in the book.

"You guys are losing the "pespective" on this."
In a perfect candor, will you say that to have perspective is meaning to agree with you ?

The matter seems no different, one may confess, after your long message.
If I do not understand, I a wait better instruction eagerly.

- votre ami

@Shane

"he cited other previous author's works and pretended to have done the research by adding foot notes to the appropriote archive … If this is correct then his books are worth nothing more than to be used as door stoppers."

Are you sure ?
In the first place, we have seen no actual examples so far in this discussion.
But let us assume they exist just as you say. So, for an hypothetiqur exemple, we have the view of the major Baring via Siborne or Beamish or the Hannoversches militärisches Journal, and then we see instead a footnote : "Carton 10A, Hanovre Arkiv", which does not exist.
Is this enough to make the books into door stoppings ? YOu still have the Baring either way, and you may be did not have him at all before you had the books ?
If you do not read Germsn, some one will have to gie you the Baring some how, so is this way all bad ?

I really do not know the answer.

And then again, how exactly does the view of Baring be come a citation ? You do have have the books. Can you tell us ?

- votre ami

It is always concerning to ask again, again, and again for what the actual problem is witha book and get nothing back but what amount to personal attacks on the author (and thew right or wrong of those attacks being irrelevent).

"He's lied so therefore is a liar so therefore nothing he writes can be of use' is as true as 'he's behaved like a loon, therefore he's a loon, therefore anything he writes is mere ramblings'.

I've checked many of the narratives in terms of who was where when (individuals and formations) in 'new perspectives' against anything else I can locate and am yet to find a trustworthy contradiction. But that in itself means little.

Daryl

Dave Hollins
I'm sorry, but there's a huge credibility gap suddenly opening up here, sadly, in someone I admire. And hope to continue to do so.

I make an analysis of a PH book,
see post: 23 Nov 2005 9:37 p.m. PST
TMP link
and I find biographical details invented. I find events asserted, events cited and upon reading the reference, find the event Peter described didn't exist.

You then, without going into any detail, lay doubt on my analysis writing:

''It is not PH's evidence, since that is based on documents, which set out the story.''

When I counter you with specific page references showing PH's textual inventions you are forced to write:

''I haven't read the book''

Amazing. Yet you still defend the man. I've already shown you the huge problems, extensively and in black and white.
link

So what credibility can we attribute to someone who writes

''many of you may appreciate why PH and I make such a thing of checking citations and telling the truth about bibliographical refs''

Help me on this one, Dave. What evidence do you have that 'PH' does any such thing?

I see this conversation is heading towards the usual squalor…

I don't see how anyone sensible can doubt that D H-W's footnotes are falsified to give an air of scholarship to his book. The whole point of citations is to allow others to check that the facts are correct, and when someone announces they are not, it't not a matter of opinion or credibility, it's a matter of fact. No one has come along and found that his material really was in those cartons, so case closed.

And I also think, although it is a matter of opinion, that anyone sensible will pretty quickly see that the larger concerns of the would-be trilogy are in the vein of "everything you know is wrong" revisionist sensationalism that I have heard is a particular guilty pleasure of British readers.

So, it's safe to say the author is unreliable, and his microhistory of the battle itself, which reads quite well, must be confirmed episode by episode. At the same time, it is disappointing that the list of bad citations is long and the list of bad history is so very short. In fact, the only example of the latter I am aware of can be found in Ian Fletcher "Galloping at Everything", page 265 note 35, which does catch some implausibilities and an error in citation.

NSN