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

Can I ask again? Has David Hamilton-Williams ever published a defence of himself and his work?

Regards

No – he made his libel threats and then disapperaed without trace in the Nap world, although see his letter writing ventures above!

Thank you. I'm a bit surprised – authors normally write quite impassioned defences of their works if they're questioned, don't they?

Regards

Sounds very much like history repeating itself. Content questioned. Author behaves bizarely, never realy answering the questions put to him, leaving everyone scratching their heads in wonder.

The only substantial critisizm I have found so far is the person from Hannover who claims in the Amazon review that he has checked the cartons in the Hannoverian archives.

But even he does just claim that either the karton numbers are wrong or the named sources can be found not in the kartons, but in already publisized work.
He doesn´t claim that HW has invented sources or interpreted them contrary to what they actually say.

This critisizm actually indicates that HW´s work may be indeed adequatly researched, only inadequatly documented.

Perhaps HW was indeed trying to create an aura around him along the lines of the expert scholar finding the hidden secrets in the basement of the war archive, perhaps its just sloppy documentation in the preparation of the book.

I´m still waiting for a grave case of what might be deliberate desinformation based on a footnote, like Gregg Pedlow has found out in his controvery with Peter Hofschroer around the Zieten message and what the german historian Pflug-Hartung has written about it.

Overall I´m completly neutral in this, if someone tries to destroy the integrity of HW with good or bad reason, do it.

But a book with wrong footnotes is not a lie or fraud or worthless, it can still be a brilliant peace of work.

The Amazon review which did impress me more is the claim from one reviewer that the book actually doesn´t offer the claimed new perspectives, but is largely based on existing mainstream works.

"I´m still waiting for a grave case of what might be deliberate desinformation based on a footnote, like Gregg Pedlow has found out in his controvery with Peter Hofschroer around the Zieten message and what the german historian Pflug-Hartung has written about it."

Professor Pedlow has only stated his interpretation of an article of von Pflugk-Hartung – when you read it – you miay come to the same conclusion or to that one Peter Hofschröer does.

In case of interest there was a series of articles in the Age of Napoleon where Peter Hofschröer made a strong case for his arguments, not weakened by Pedlow.

But a book with wrong footnotes is not a lie or fraud or worthless, it can still be a brilliant peace of work.

That's incorrect. Would you say that an experiment of Nuclear Physics is "still brilliant" if one of the equations is wrong? For a historian is the same with footnotes and documents: if they are wrongly quoted -I don't care why- his/her book will be worthless as History, not a brilliant piece of work. Not as History, at least. May be as a novel it could be.

Writing history is about a relationship between author and reader. The first presents his job to the judgment of public, in the mutual understanding that he has been precise, accurate and honest. The key to test his honesty are the footnotes. If they are wrongly quoted you can't check it. And then you are cheating from your peers and readers the posibility to defy your interpretation of the same sources.

A book written in that way wouldn't be, ever, a good job.

I am sorry but I am very pricky with this, as it is my profession: I can't bear lazy/ignorant/sloppy historians that aren't concious enough to put their footnotes correctly.

v. Winterfeld wrote: "Professor Pedlow has only stated his interpretation of an article of von Pflugk-Hartung – when you read it – you miay come to the same conclusion or to that one Peter Hofschröer does."

Sorry but how can I come to a different conclusion than Pedlow when Pflug-Hartung states:

"Alles in allem war die preußische Berichterstattung an den englischen Feldherrn eine geringe, der Bedrohlichkeit der Sachlage kaum entsprechende. Der Grund hierfür dürfte ein doppelter gewsen sein: die unglückliche Verspäzung des Zietenschen Meldereiters, dem keine weiteren folgten, und der Entschluß des preußischen Hauptquartiers, am 16. die Schlacht gegen Napoleon anzunehmen, und zwar unter allen Umständen…."

An a little bit curious

Ulenspiegel

V.Winterfeld,
I still don´t understand how this can, or could be, even debated.

The Pflug Hartung article was written by him in defence of Wellington against accusations of being responsible for the Ligny defeat because receiving the Zieten message early and doing nothing.
At the end of the article Pflug-Hartung comes to the clearly expressed conclusion that Wellington did receive the Zieten message late in the day and therefore cannot be given responsibility for the Ligny defeat.
The whole article deals with this topic and culminates in the said conclusion.

Hofschroer claims that Wellington did receive the message early in the day and therefore bears the responsibility for doing nothing to come to the aid of the prussians.

To underline his reasoning he claims that one of the most renowned german Waterloo historians, Pflug-Hartung, sees it like him.

He then cites the said article from Pflug-Hartung.

Hi Shane,

I read the first book when it first came out years ago and didn't care for it as I thought some of the footnotes were 'odd.'

I also didn't care for the authors opinions on Siborne.

Shortly thereafter, I was visiting Col Elting at his home and he asked my opinion on the book and I told him I didn't care for it and why. He agreed and we both had come to the same conclusion independently.

I didn't know anything of the controversy until much later. And that is really none of my business. The bottom line on the book(s) in question is that I didn't care for it when I first read it and I don't think it is good for use as a reference. And my conclusion on the books hasn't changed in the last ten years or so.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"The bottom line on the book(s) in question is that I didn't care for it when I first read it…"

Now there's a standard we can all aspire too!

NSN

"He then cites the said article from Pflug-Hartung." It can be a problem citing articles in being precise about them. I am guessing, but I would expect that Pf-Ha laid out all the relevant documentation, which is important because of the destruction of the Prussian archives in WW2. thus it is possible to cite (and agree with) the whole article article and merely disagree with the last conclusion paragraph.

Basileus is absolutely right on H-W, but there is an additional problem with the actual use of secondary material masquerading as the primary source. That is the effect of the intervening secondary author, who might have made an error, deliberately changed something or added in his own opinion under the footnote. Cynics might also think it is done in the belief that no-one will check the supposed origin in the primary material, although bizarrely such auithgors will often give themselves away by only producing such notes from one secondary book.

"I am guessing,…"

WHATEVER FOR, DAVE???

This whole thread is about reading the sources you are holding forth about. I'm afraid Pedlow nailed Peter on that one. You should just let it go.

NSN

I don't know why you persist in it, Dave, while your own ability to discern such errors in PH has been thrown in doubt.

Dave Hollins wrote: "I am guesseing…"

Yes, that maybe the problem. :-))))

Pfug-Hartung, who indeed used archive marterial, that has been destroyed in WW2, lists the available/used documents and worked on the obvious contracdictions. Then he gives good arguments, why he does not consider Zieten's journal credible and comes to the most likely version of the events, i.e. Zieten sent relatively late (8-9 am) a messenger to Wellington, whose ride – to make it worse – took much longer than expected. Pflug-Hartungs conclusion is, that Wellington indeed received very late the news of the French attack as a result of a Prussian mistake.

So, again, how can I derive another conclusion from Pflug-Hartung? IMHO Hofschroers position in this issue is not tenable, when he uses Plug-Hartung as support.

This, of course, does not solve the problem with conflictiong versions of Wellington's promise of support, but this is a different battlefield.

Ulenspiegel

Of course you can – we can have the same information, but draw different conclusions from it, but often it depends on other background information, which is where I gather Pedlow is being evasive.

Evan/Iglo went through a whole series of French memoirs related to Marengo and in his conclusion, they "proved" that the Guard had moved off early enough early enough to reach the battlefield around 1 p.m. Terry and I used these memoirs, such as Eugene de Beauharnais, because they decribe certain episodes in the actual fighting. Consequently, we and Evan were using the same material with the same citations. However, you also have to look at other material related to the battle to understand the actual timings.

Likewise, I always list Rothenberg in my work and sometimes take a primary citation per his work, yet it does not mean that I agree with all of his conclusions. I know Kevin used NV72 when he wrote his own book and he might have cited it, but it would not mean that he agreed with my conclusion about Gribeauval. Quite the opposite in fact!

The trouble with people like Pedlow is that they are so obsessed with "debunking" Peter than they focus on one piece of information and say "ha, ha, you're wrong", when PH's response I gather is simply that unlike Pf-ha, he also looked (ironically!) at British and Dutch accounts of what happened in W's HQ to reach a different conclusion. However, PH would still be left with the question "where did the Prussian info come from?" and that can only be Pf-Ha. Consequently, he must cite Pf-Ha, even though he does not agree with his conclusion (which incidentally is all that is reproduced above).

As I said to Evan about Beauharnais, you cannot read one item in isolation and declare that a recent author is wrong.

So Dave in otherwise its not something you can point to, but more like "the vibe of the thing"?!?!?!?

@ Dave Hollins

You do not bring one argument why Pflug-Hartung's interpretation is wrong or what would be the alternative.

The messanger was a corner stone in Hofschroers model and did not survive closer inspection.

Wheteher you consider Pedlow evasive is not relevant.

Ulenspiegel

dave,
your bias is showing.Again.
Mr Pedlow here & in First Empire showed no "obsession" with debunking Hoffie.
A lawyer's 'Weasal word" if ever I heard one.
This is exactly why I think you'll never live up to your promise as an historian. You carry baggage.
Please compare with Mr Pedlow's reasoned, calm & scholarly discussion of this point to the , shall we say odd?, appearances of Hoffie here.
Of course, you won't do that.
How can I disagree with Pedlow when he makes a case & the other raves & rants?
History: O Mora O tempores!
donald

'I know Kevin used NV72 when he wrote his own book and he might have cited it,…'

No, I didn't use your book when I wrote artillery.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'we can have the same information, but draw different conclusions from it,'

That is so true. It is great that you have finally admitted to that fact. Well done, I'm proud of you.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I knew eventually dave would try to drag kevin into this thread. God I wish this would stop happening, dave can't you just quit doing this crap??? It always turns into a personal vendetta with dave, nothing changes.

I found Greg Pedlow's article very well done, well-researched, and well-reasoned. I thought the articles by Gary Cousins and John Hussey very well done also. I don't see any problems with them historically or in their research.

Perhaps if anyone disagrees with their conclusions the perceived errors could be pointed out with appropriate citations in the pertinent references that refute their conclusions?

Sincerely,
Kevin

'I am guessing…'

Did you read the two Waterloo books by either author that are being discussed here? You also stated that 'I don't know Waterloo' did you not?

If you don't know it and haven't read the books, why are you commenting on the controversy?

If you didn't read them, how can you write a review of them? Didn't you once write a review of a book on Amazon and state in the review that you hadn't read the book?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hofschroer did explicitly state that Pflug-Hartung did support Hofschroers view on the Zieten message.
He did even try to defend this hopeless position.

Dave, what would you think when reading something like "Dave Hollins has come to the conclusion the bricole was invented by Gribeauval in 1762" all this underlined with a correct(!!) foot note leading indeed to a page in a Hollins book where you write something like " Kiley claims……".

Shane,

I sometimes believe something akin to Al Pacino's statement in Godfather III. 'I try to get out, and they drag me back in…' ;-)

Sincerely,
K

yup mate, seems that way, sorry you got sucked into this vacuum once more.

That's OK. I thought the statement that I had used the ubiquitous 'NV 72' as a reference quite amusing. It's not even in the bibliography of Artillery. I went out of my way not to use it.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Shane, I was only using an example, which anyone could grasp quite easily. Kevin does however demonstrate the dangers of claiming to have the same information, when in fact, one has it through secondary material, but there is another example. Kevin claims (quite wrongly) that Austrian Cavalry gunners rode on a wagon – I thought thios was from his much-used Tousard, but in fact, it comes from copying Rothenberg's error in referring to Wurst-wagens as the means of transport. There isn't a citation, so it can take some working out when people try to mislead readers with extensive bibliographies. Someone I know has spotted something in Kevin's book, which comes from NV72 and I know he borrowed a copy.

That is off the point. Ulen is missing the central point here – PH has used more than Pf-Ha to reach an overall conclusion different from Pf-Ha (who did not consult the other material). However, PH still as to cite Pf-Ha because it contains what is left of the Prussian material. It is up to PH to argue his case, but I am surprised that this has come up only ten years ex post facto, especially when Pf-Ha is so well known as was writing in defence of W. The argument would only be progressed by considering all of PH's information, not just the bit that Pedlow likes.

Daryl – I suggest you read the reviews of H-W and bear in mind that he invented a whole archive as well as putting his neck on the line with a key citation in an FE letter that turned out to be about something completely different.

'Someone I know has spotted something in Kevin's book, which comes from NV72 and I know he borrowed a copy.'

I never borrowed a copy of the book. I own one, as I bought it when it came out, and nothing in artillery 'comes from NV72.' Again, and very slowly, NV 72 was not used as a reference for artillery. It stayed on the bookshelf.

'I thought thios was from his much-used Tousard, but in fact, it comes from copying Rothenberg's error in referring to Wurst-wagens as the means of transport.'

The statement is in both Rothenberg and Tousard. Have you read Tousard?

If you were asked to 'edit' Rothenberg as you have mentioned a time or two, why didn't you correct the errors that you now state are in there?

Sincerely,
Kevin

It was Rothenberg's work and my job was to check the scan for errors. There were a couple of things he had taken from Bowden, which are wrong, but it is not for me to rewrite his book.

No, I haven't read Tousard, not least as he left Europe before horse artillery got started and never saw other European artillery in action. I would think he would be useful if writing about US artillery, but beyond that he is a poor secondary source and anyone relying on him would be doing a shoddy job.

Oh, so now you say you did not use NV72 – shame really as you might have got your facts right.

Iglo – You make my point with: "Dave, what would you think when reading something like "Dave Hollins has come to the conclusion the bricole was invented by Gribeauval in 1762" all this underlined with a correct(!!) foot note leading indeed to a page in a Hollins book where you write something like " Kiley claims……"."

If I were to do that, I am sure several people would say "Dave, you are an idiot to use one source" (whatever its basis). Had you bothered to look at the 1757 drawings in Duffy and NV72 (supposing someone else had written it), you would have at least questioned the point. Steven Smith would certainly have picked it up as he started that discussion by reviewing NV72 soon after it came out – rather than ten years after PH's books were written! That said, I might still refer to Kevin's book and say "KK claims" and I might even use some material from his book, but that does not mean that I agree with Kevin's views. I would still have to list Kevin's book in the bibliography. But then, it would be quite wrong for you to say: ah but you have cited Kevin's book and then reached a different conclusion. You would look at my work and note that I had perhaps looked at several other sources on the point before reaching my own conclusion.

It seems that Pedlow is trying to put words into PH's mouth and that is my point.

'Oh, so now you say you did not use NV72…'

I've never said anything else.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'No, I haven't read Tousard, not least as he left Europe before horse artillery got started and never saw other European artillery in action. I would think he would be useful if writing about US artillery, but beyond that he is a poor secondary source and anyone relying on him would be doing a shoddy job.'

If you haven't read the manual, you cannot make a valid judgment of it. For one thing, horse artillery was 'started' in the 1750s and Tousard didn't go to the US until about twenty years later.

And if you've paid attention, the source material for Tousard has been listed on the forums more than once and it is one of the best artillery manusals of the period.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'It was Rothenberg's work and my job was to check the scan for errors.'

That's exactly my point. And if you considered Rothenberg in error, wasn't it a good idea to bring it up? If you didn't, then you really cannot criticize the errors in the book that you do criticize, as you had an opportunity to at least mention and failed to do it. Terrible.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave: "'I know Kevin used NV72 when he wrote his own book and he might have cited it,…"

Kev: "No, I didn't use your book when I wrote artillery."

I do not know if Kev ‘used' NV72, but I do know that he had access to it, as I sent it to him the day after I received if from Amazon.com [a pre-order]. This was well before the book was sent to the publisher.

Kev returned my copy of NV72 to me ca. 18 months later.

Steve

NB: NV72 = Austrian Napoleonic Artillery 1792-1815 (Osprey New Vanguard series #72) by David Hollins. An excellent work. Highly recommended.

Steve,

I already stated that I have my own copy, and that I have read it and did not use it as a reference for Artillery. And yes, I had 'access' to it and made the comment on Max Sewell's old forum that there was nothing I was not familiar with except for the material on the Austrian rockets. Then I found an excellent reference on my own for the rocket material which also included material on the other nations that worked on rockets during the period.

I also gave the booklet an excellent review on Amazon, which was later removed. There are errors in it, but it is a good volume to use for the period.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Calling all bitches!
Calling all bitches!
Come in bitches!
Come in bitches!

Dave Hollins wrote: "Ulen is missing the central point here – PH has used more than Pf-Ha to reach an overall conclusion different from Pf-Ha (who did not consult the other material)."

The first critism came from John Hussey (War in History 1999/2000) based on many allied sources, he did not cites Pflug-Hartung at all. That's correct?

When then a few years later the same results are found in an old source (Pflug-Hartung), what does this tells us. :-)))

Ulenspiegel

For those of you who missed it the first time, here is the link to the Pedlow article in First Empire:
PDF link
Pay particular attention to note 30. Ouch!

Dave, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with your arguments. You argue that maybe Hofschroer was just citing a passed down source, yet a simple read of note 30, which you imply you have not down, would show that untenable. You call Pedlow "obsessed" when he never uses the kind of shrill language you use addressing the problems in DH-W, Bowden, or Kiley. You suggest Pedlow needs to write a whole book to justify his point about P-H, yet you have not written a book about Waterloo, Austerlitz, or Napoleonic Artillery (your contribution on Austrian Artillery is noted and appreciated). You raise a complaint that it took 10 years for someone to check up on P-H (This disappoints me too. But it is more a measure of the respect PH has earned simply by putting his thesis in print.), as if maybe in 10 years someone went and rewrote all the copies of P-H??? It is a mystery to me why you would spend so much energy on someone else's project and why you would advance such flimsy, tendentious arguments that will only bring into question your own credibility.

NSN

An ‘issue' that I had meant to address on several previous occasions:

There has been speculation as to whether Kev used the German sources found in his "Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815" bibliography. Again, I cannot attest as to whether or not he read them, but I did provide him with:

Exercier-Vorschrift mit dem Kaiserl. Königl. ordinären Feld. und Cavallerie-Geschütze sowohl einzeln als in Batterien. -Wien, Degen 1809.

Zur Ausbildung und Taktik der Artillerie. Altpreussischer Kommiss, offiziell, offiziös und privat, Heft 41. Osnabrück, 1982.

Handbuch für Officiere in den angewandten Theilen der Krieges-Wissenschaften / aufgesetzt von G. v. Scharnhorst. Th. 1, Artillerie, Bd. 2. 2., gänzlich umgearb., u. ums vierfache verm. Aufl.
Hannover: Helwing, 1806. As well as a specially published set of plates, whech were separate from the published volumes.

and

Smola, Joseph. Handbuch für k.k. österreichische Artillerie-Offiziere. 2., verm. Aufl. Wien: F. Beck, 1839. Note: Mit Benützung der hinterlassenen Schriften des Joseph Freiherrn von Smola bearb. u. hrsg. von Karl von Smola und Joseph von Smola.

The Exercier-Vorschrift was a photocopy. All other volumes were originals.

These materials, other than the Exercier-Vorschrift and Zur Ausbildung und Taktik der Artillerie (a gift), were returned to me ca 18 months later.

I hope this information puts an end to the speculation.

Steve

PS Kevin, please curb your dog, he appears to need to take a dump. <;^}

What did upset me the most is the fact that Hofschroer explicitly claims Pflug-Hartung supports his view.
Thats a clear cut lie.

Still Pedlow didn´t use the words "lies" or "fraud" in his article, he doesn´get personal and tells all kind of "interesting" details about Hofschroers private live, he stands above that.

Instead he presents the case,gives a quite detailed overview on the Zieten message debate and the historical context, shows what Hofschroer did say in the context of Zieten/Pflug-Hartung, and then he shows what Pflug-Hartung did actually write.

Thats how it should be done, I can´t see this in the case of Hamilton-Williams .

The average reader is not very much interested if things said to be in Karton A can actually be found in Karton B, but he usually expects his author to be somewhat true to his source.

I have not yet seen evidence that H-W has crossed this boundary, not even claims that he did.
Peter Hofschroer,who is among the H-W critics did it at least once.

And the topic was not the colour of Wellington´s uniform, the accusations were actually as grave as it can get, if Hofschroer was right then Wellington would have deserved a court-martial, as a Prussian general he would have deserved to get shot.

Steven,

You don't need to be crude. And, yes, you provided great information for me to use on Artillery. And yes, it was consulted and used for background material.

And I do believe that I have thanked you before for providing the material. In those days you were much nicer and we were, I thought, friends to some extent. Your subsequent behavior has modified my idea to that.

And I would also like to thank you for returning the manuscript that you had for a few months but forgot to comment on. That was very helpful. I always wondered why you did that, but that's your business. It caused some interesting comments.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Ulenspiegel et al.

It is ok for me if you to take over Pflugk Hartunngs assesment, for me – I cannot follow his arumentation

Either Zieten lies, or Grollman, or Müffling, or Wellington, I stick with Zieten's statements.

As un ami says, this is the opinion of one man – ok.

Just to add, I am not blaming Wellington for the defeat at Ligny either, friction of war.

Seems this little row has been going sometime!
At least since 1903
link- link

you then need to open the pdf file.

I'm sure all you learned gentlemen are proberly well aware of this sort of artical- but I found it intreasting, so i've put it up for anyone who is ignorant as myself.

Not sure weather this throws any light on things.

cut'n'pasted

Hanoverian Archives

The Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv in Hanover contains a collection of material relating to the Waterloo Campaign. The files of interest include:

38D – King's German Legion 1803-1816

41 – Generalkommando und Militärakten der Londoner Kanzlei 1629-1864.

38D includes a report on the Battle of Waterloo, while 41 includes the official after-action reports of various brigade, regiment, and battalion commanders of the Hanoverian forces at the Battle of Waterloo, casualty lists, copies of correspondence with Siborne on his Waterloo model, and sworn depositions on the capture of Général Cambronne at Waterloo. Much of this material was used by Pflugk-Harttung in his "Belle Alliance" (see below).

link- link

It's written by the naughty Mr Hofschroer

Well, knock me down with a feather…
It's worse than I thought. Did PH really use the self-serving memoirs of General Zieten as the cornerstone of his attack on Wellington?
I doubt that in the entire annals of military history there exists a commander who hasn't attempted to blame someone else for his defeats.
Zieten's Prussians had had their arses kicked by the French, despite numerical superiority. Of course he's going to do anything he can to deflect criticism. And as a historian, PH should be only too aware of the caveats that accompany any military memoirs.
I suspect he WAS only too aware but chose to believe that which fitted in with his own agenda..
Pedlow's article, although I know little of, and wouldn't pretend that it's the last word on, the subject, seems quite logical to me and makes perfect sense.
Slightly away from the topic here- but then it is a Nappy thread…
Oh, I also now use my 'Waterloo- New Perspectives' as a doorstop. The unfortunate Mr. HW sounds quite the 'card' doesn't he?

How is PH using Zeiten's memoirs as a 'corner stop'?

As PH says 'Zieten

Although Zieten's journal from the Campaign appears to be another one of the casualties of the Second World War, extracts from it were published in the magazine "Militärisches" in 1896 in Leipzig. Zieten commanded the Prussian I Army Corps.'

From the above link.
He gives a lot of sources.

Anyway I've got the book on order (New Perspectives)- I tend to get confused with all the coming and going on the Naplonic battlefield, but that miht be because i've been reading these threads and about the B.of Leipzig!. Waterloo seems far simpler to comprehend.