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

Dave Hollins!

"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."

What do you think that was then an error a mistake or what. If you are scan for errors, you find them and make a note for the author to change it or show that YOU MAY BE WRONG and then they publish the book.

You letting it go make you an acropolis to the supposed wrong info.

?????

Robert Henry

hi guys,

I just want to know if there is an English translation of Pf-Ha anywhere I can get my hands on?

Shane

"one of the best artillery manusals of the period" – no, Tousard is a secondary work drawn in large chunks from the much-altered de Scheel, if you were paying attention. As a secondary work written by someone, who never saw anything in Europe post 1770, it is almost worthless. The dangers of copying such secondary material are apparent from your claims that G tested Austrian guns and that Austrian gunners rode on wagons.

As to Rothenberg, my brief was not to change it, but to check the text after scanning, which is an editorial type job.

"nothing I was not familiar with except for the material on the Austrian rockets" – really? then why is your book full of nonsense about Austrian artillery? It is very dangerous to make such claims as you can be found out and it damages your credibility. We might start with your claim to have used Dolleczek, yet when he lists many winners of the MTO in the back of his book, you claim only Smola made a significant contribution to Austrian artillery.

Anyway, back to the central point. NSN – my point about the ten years is simply that it is interesting that given the arguments began in 98, why did it take so long for this to surface? I did read that article – probably about the only one I have ever read on the subject and I thought his arguments very persuasive. They are for PH to answer and I gather his answer is that you have to go wider than just one source, which seems sensible to me. You can see from vW's comment above that it is not as clear cut as Pedlow maintains.

Don't get me wrong – I am not saying that I "know PH is right" because I have known him for about 30 years. In claiming Pf-Ha's conclusion agrees with him, PH is wrong as far as I can see. I was offering an approach, which would be more useful in discussing the point at issue – because there is no dispute that PH read Pf-Ha. Pedlow is obviously siding with Hussey (who does seem to be a bit obsessed if he has been going on about this for ten years) and note the problem – two notes down, Pedlow says that Hussey "disproved" PH's timing by using various Allied sources. Hussey obviously cannot read German and pedlow does not tell us which sources Hussey used – PH I think of the three of them is the only one to have read all of the sources. Then there is the Marengo problem I mentioned above that memoir writers can be affected by the "official line". Pedlow does not have to write a book – the argument is about Ziethen's message, but you must look at everything and it seems to me that PH's detractors try to mounta single source attack after single source attack, rather than (if they can) simply land a knockout blow by looking at everything. Given the usual UK attitudes to germanic material, it seems to be neither here nor there whether Pf-Ha agrees or disagrees with PH – the question comes down to the evidence, not opinions. PH might have made a mistake or he might have deliberately misled readers, but Pedlow is trying to knock him down on something, which is not critical to the argument. Kevin has misquoted Zschmodikov & Z on a Russian sight saying what Z&Z think is a disadvantage is an advantage – I don't think that really matters in a debate about Russian sights.

Whatever the arguments over the interpretation of he relevant material, there does not seem to be any dispute over whether PH read it. Likewise, his books are about far more than one message, important as it is. PH has footnoted his material and obviously others have checked it up.

Evan/Iglo has summarised the key problem of understanding however – "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." The importance of this is that it will often reveal whether there is a problem, which is why such things are argued about. It can often reveal whether the material has come through a secondary source with all the intermediate effects or has been simply made up.

The point about H-W is that he was being dishonest at all levels. Digby Smith had his Otto persona for marketing reasons, but it doesn't matter as he is honest in his approach to his work. H-W has lied about himself (and has supporting convictions), he has lied about his citations either by making them or saying they say something they do not – he put his own credibility on the line with the Mons comms line. He has invented a whole archive! (that is going some). He has produced a bibliography in Book 2 of 336 books, of which I suspect he looked at about ten and critically, he makes allusions to non-English material in an attempt to gain more credibility – ie: it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. He has copied secondary material pretending it is primery and that he ahs examined it. Then the whole lot is dressed up as new research and "new perspectives" and he sold nearly 20k copies of his Waterloo book on hte back of that claim, when in fact he did next to nothing new. He deliberately writes that he has conclusive evidence to convince the reader that his claims are substantive. Most of us on here probably can see through it – but we are a handful of the 20K – and his work has now infected the Waterloo record. Even now, some readers are clearly not aware of what he did.

Individually, a criticism above could be laid at the doort of many authors, but not the whole lot. You might disagree with interpretations, but at least you should be told what that interpretation is based on.

'"one of the best artillery manusals of the period" – no, Tousard is a secondary work drawn in large chunks from the much-altered de Scheel, if you were paying attention. As a secondary work written by someone, who never saw anything in Europe post 1770, it is almost worthless.'

As Tousard's text is over 1200 pages, and DeScheel is actually a relatively small work, how can the much larger work be drawn on 'large chunks' of a much smaller work?

Again, I listed the works that Tousard used as reference material and apparently you missed it. Would you like me to list them again for you? They are quite significant and from some of the leading artillerymen and theorists of the period.

And since you haven't read Tousard, how do you know what's in it, or not?

I believe Smola to be the leading Austrian artilleryman of the period, but that is certainly arguable. However, I wasn't looking for who won the 'MTO' and was not interested in listing them, no more than I listed those who had won the Legion of Honor. That wasn't the point of the book. And if you would actually read Artillery carefully, you might actually learn something. However, as I have said before, you may do as you like but your opinions are just that-your opinions and nothing more.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kev,

"I always wondered why you did that …." Perhaps you did not understand that I was only requested by the original editor to view the manuscript as to whether there was any copyright infringement problem vis-a-vis Dave Hollins' work on Austrian Artillery. This was a concern at the time. There wasn't in my view any such copyright infringement. The subsequent editor asked me to return the manuscript, in fact at my own expense, I immediately did so.

Steve

PS Thank you for curbing your dog.

Steve,

Funny that, you emailed me and told me you were the manuscript reviewer as I recall. Greenhill told me the same thing. And you had the manuscript for over four months and did nothing with it. I remember quite distinctly the editor stating that he was 'underwhelmed' when you returned it with no comments on it after holding it for so long. A new manuscript reviewer had to be found as you hadn't done what you were supposed to do. Isn't it funny how people remember things in different ways. Your lack of action on the manuscript delayed publication for a few months.

And I was asked about the 'copyright infringement' issue and told Greenhill I had no intention of using the book for a reference. That tended to settle the issue, if issue there was in the beginning. You might want to 'review' what you've said because it is quite incorrect.

As I recall, and I reviewed a few manuscripts for Greenhill, they always reimbursed. You informed me you weren't going to take any payment for reviewing the manuscript. Interesting, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Kevin

>>>>Funny that, you emailed me and told me you were the manuscript reviewer as I recall. Greenhill told me the same thing. And you had the manuscript for over four months and did nothing with it. I remember quite distinctly the editor stating that he was 'underwhelmed' when you returned it with no comments on it after holding it for so long. A new manuscript reviewer had to be found as you hadn't done what you were supposed to do. Isn't it funny how people remember things in different ways. Your lack of action on the manuscript delayed publication for a few months<<<<

priceless…

So steve, what ya got to say about that little snippit of interesting news matey ?

Dave,
its easy to discuss the problem away by starting to debate the Zieten message or state that there are different opinions on this, but the key problem is actually quite simple.

Hofschroer calls Pflug-Hartung "arguably the most prolific waterloo historian who has lived".

He jumps into the great waterloo debate with the claim that he, as a bilingual person has access to all the great german historians and the german sources which were so long ignored by the British.

He then claims that "the most prolific Waterloo historian who has lived" supports his view on a key issue.

Actually "the most prolific waterloo historian who has lived" does not, instead he has even written a larger article to debunk views like Hofschroers.

Again,the topic Hofschroer and "the most prolific Waterloo historian who has lived" deal with is not Wellington´s uniform colour or the quality of russian artillery sights, but deliberatly leaving an ally alone in one of the decisive moments of the napoleonic wars.

In case of H-W its quite intersting to see that his critics, who seem to have been quite engaged , have not yet found an "error" of that kind, just some confusion with the foot notes, something which might perhaps have happened during the compilation of the book and might even have come out of the sphere of the editor.

If H-W is openly called a liar and Hofschroer staunchly defended, then the standards for lies and truth are obviously different.

What is the general consensus of everyone?

Is H-W ……?

1/ Liar – Made things up manipulating as he went and or fabricated events and facts
2/ Mistaken – through his own faulty research or those of printing via publishers
3/ Truthful – accurate and forthright even if let down by his printer/publishers.

Another point Dave,
if H-W has really made the claim that the Prussian communications were running through Mons, there is no need to check the source, a quick look on the map reveals that the prussian communications did not run through Mons, Mons lies to the west, the Prussian communications went eastward.
The British line of communications indeed might or might not have run through Mons, its easy to check this.
I would be rally be surprised if H-W had made such a claim considering the Prussian line of communications.

Shane, I would respectfully state I don't think consensus comes into such a judgement.
It is up to the individual reader to make his own mind up as to H-W's book's worth.
I have read the book (some time ago) & I'm willing to believe it is flawed based on what I've read here & elsewhere. I never believed it to be an important book anyway.
If I was more of a scholar, I might attempt to chase down sources for myself.
Similarly, I've read Pedlow here & elsewhere, & various posters here & elswhere & I've made up my own mind as to the honesty of PH & the worth of his 'trilogy in 4 parts'.
donald

Shane,

Seeing as you asked, I would be charitable and say Kev was 'mistaken'. I will leave it at that.

The manuscript I received had already been fully, and fairly, reviewed by someone else. Fortunately, the manuscript copy I received only bore a slight similarity to the published work.

Steve

>>>>the manuscript copy I received only bore a slight similarity to the published work.<<<<

publishers are notorious for having manuscripts modified and changed. I doubt the words you used, "slight similarity" is close to the mark but I will leave it at that also.

Stephen Summerfield himself told me my personal emails that his book was modified and manipulated by the publishers especially with drawings and so on so I would suspect Kevin went through the same problem.

Shane

Shane,

The correct quote is,

"Fortunately, the manuscript copy I received only bore a slight similarity to the published work."

You left off 'Fortunately'. <;^}

Sincerely,

Steve

okie, granted but why do you say, "fortunately" ?

The name of the German author is

Julius von Pflugk-Harttung, 1848-1919.

Note the 'k' at the end of the first part and the two 't's in the second part of the last name.

I find it interesting that German 19th and early 20th century authors that support one's position are scholars, while those that don't are ‘politicians'. Curious, isn't it?

Sincerely,

Steve

Shane – H-W lied about things at every level. There is an inherent dishonesty in his work to the extent that even the publishers felt misled (rare with hyped up books) to the extent that they dumped his third book.

Iglo – H-W made the specific claim about the line of comms in a letter in FE and stuck his neck out, which is why I checked it. It is not one error in a book. I haven't myself looked at anything else on Waterloo, but it is clear that the dishonesty extended into his second book. On Waterloo, I gather the key problems are that he miscited and misquoted Siborne as well as using Hanoverian archival refs, which are apparently pre-WW2 (ie: they are secondary or made up).

I think P-H has shot himself in the foot and the Pf-Ha conclusion point is going to be used regularly against him. However, it is an isolated incident as no-one seems to challenge what he says about 99.5% of his data, only its interpretation. I suspect, given a vast pile of info that PH though Pf-Ha agreed with him when in fact PH really recalled that the data in Pf-Ha, when viewed in the context of other info, supported his view. Kevin has made this error with Z&Z and I made a silly mistake with the wagons, but no-one is going to focus on those. You have to remember that the technique here is keep going on and on about one point to "disprove" it in an effort to "disprove" an entire thesis because on the rest of the book, PH's opponents have nothing to say. I don't think it was a deliberate misstatement by PH because at n.1 in Pedlow's FE article, Pedlow says PH gave him some very obscure articles by Pf-Ha, which implies that PH must have realised that Pedlow knew about the main Pf-Ha works.

As an aside to Nom de plumes; I understand Digby Smith's persona as Otto von Pivka was that he was a serving officer in the Toyal Signals at the time.

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

The difference is, if I am not mistaken, the "context". In order to "prove" your point you had to ASSUME that the Garde Consulaire acted as a three arms unit… Which it did not.

All your conclusions are based on this BELIEF. If you read all the reports et "états", it is clear that the Garde Consulaire was used piecemeal. The documents gathered in the de Cugnac study shows that.

The artillery was assigned well *before* the beginning of the battle to different line brigades. It did not fight as one unit during the battle, but rather as support of different line commands. One battery there, another one there, etc.

The Garde cavalry acted as a brigade, independantly to the Garde Consulaire infantry. When you keep that in mind, then the memoirs of Eugène de Beauharnais tell a completely different story. Sure Eugène talks about the Garde Consulaire… But the cavalry part of it, nothing else.

The Garde Consulaire infantry fought with no direct artillery support in the first part of the battle. They did not fight with the support of the Garde cavalry either.

If I am not mistaken, you needed to have the Garde Consulaire to have, at least four guns in support to make a certain document believable… Maybe you should question the reliability of this document in face of what all other document tell about the Garde Consulaire infantry lack of artillery support.

Best regards.

Shane, having haunted the various journals and web fora for several decades now…

I think H-W is a liar, he appears to be what is now called a cut and paste merchant, wrongly citing source locations from other authors. I have both his books and do not trust a word.

PH is wrong on the one thing that sems to be his whole raison d'etre today, namely Wellington's duplicity; however he is a serious historian on most other things and a groundbreaking one for English readers of German Napoleonic 1815 affairs (I first came across PH in a Silesian Landwher uniform at a late 70's early 80's Salute at kensinton Town Hall) I have all his books.

I take DH's Austrian works as also very worthy and groundbreaking in the English language up with Rothenburg when at his best. I am with him on the Marengo affair, but he is no gentleman to paraphrase the Peer. I have his Osprey titles

I like Kevin Kiley, I have his Artilley book which is nonpariel in the Big Gun stakes. I think he is mistaken on Marengo, but is a Gentleman of the old school.

As for me, I play with toy soldiers, and refused to get involved in a moronic legal affair arising from a Napoleonic dispute on a now defunct forum…

Artillery is always hard to follow round the battlefield, as the Austerlitz thread shows. However, there are always fragments of info and then everything must make sense. It makes no sense at all for the main Guard battalion to be isolated from the rest of the French army without artillery, since if that were so, then the Austrians would not have needed to engage with infantry, but could simply have deployed a few 3pdrs and blown them away with canioster. Crossard (on Ott's staff) also says that 4 guns and 1 howitzer were taken in an area only used by Monnier (who withdrew in good order) and the Guard. It is not necessary to have the Guard using artillery to make Stutterheim stand up, since the Austrians were using guns and so, artillery noise/smoke was in the area. But he is not the only witness – there is Crossard on the guns, the note in DR1, Hochenegg and Rauch in IR47 and Mras, while secondary, is clearly independent of Stutterheim. On the French side, the only info is actually Soules' citation, which fits with what the Austrians say. As you note, there is nothing beyond the tale of Brabant with an abandoned gun, which leads us to the key point – namely that there is no French primary account of what is said to have happened. Consequently, you can only go on what there is and what makes sense.

Petit says that on the evening of the 13th, N was riding around with the Guard cavalry and light guns. (p.48 of the official US translation). There is also no dispute that the whole Guard was down at Torre di Garrofoli. Petit then says N mounted up and headed off for the battlefield at 11 a.m.just as the recall messages went out – N having sent a confirmation to the flank units at around 10 a.m that there were no major problems. It would have taken time for the units to form up and the cavalry would have had to march along the road, which was only 6 people wide as the ground was too broken up and soft for a wider formation on a long march. N would not have gone on his own not leasta s petit says he was alaways close to N, so the cavalry could not have left before N – Petit says that the infantry were behind them.

Shane,

Funny, but I have the same impression of Steven's ideas as 'mistaken.' Again, opinions and memories definitely change over time.

The manuscript in question was not fully and fairly reveiwed by anyone else when it was sent to Steven. There wee some remarks on it by the editor, but it had not been fully reviewed. That didn't happen until after Steven sent the manuscript back to Greenhill. I know the manuscript reviewer very well and he had a very short deadline to get it done after it had been returned. He wasn't too happy about it either.

I submitted a manuscript that was about 140,000 words. Essentially, that was what was published. There were some changes after Steven sent it back, but nothing substantial. And Greenhill did not edit the content, only the grammar and spelling errors. They kept it at the original length.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Ben,

Thank you for your very kind comments about Artillery. That was very nice of you and it is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Ben, While I would disagree with some of the things you say, not least as Kevin is guilty of embellishing his bibliography and much of what he writes is unsubstantiated or twisted claims, based on secondary material, PH did not build his whole case on W around Pf-Ha. It is a conclusion he has reached after a much wider reading than that.

As for Kevin being a gent, I suggest you consider his attacks on Nap Artillery, which are only designed to attack a book, which reveals the inadequacy of his own work. That is at least consistent with his bizartre campaigns against muy own work, which included claims of bad sourcing when my refs were actually published in the book and his turned out to be Ottenfeld and one of a different unit altogether.

To make yourself heard, you have to be mor aggressive – it is easy to copy the received wisdom as most people will go along with what they think they "know". After all, which is easier – new research in the KA in Vienna or copying reprints in English of secondary works?

Dave Hollins wrote: "I think P-H has shot himself in the foot and the Pf-Ha conclusion point is going to be used regularly against him. However, it is an isolated incident as no-one seems to challenge what he says about 99.5% of his data, only its interpretation."

Thats not correct, the first two "rebukes" of his paper in War in History by Hussey not only challanged PH's conclusions but also some of his data.

Dave Hollins wrote: "I suspect, given a vast pile of info that PH though Pf-Ha agreed with him when in fact PH really recalled that the data in Pf-Ha, when viewed in the context of other info, supported his view."

The crucial point is, Pf-Ha did not "agree" with PH and I would like to see how we could change the context without leading the affair ad absurdum. PF-Ha's conclusion is quite clear: there was no Prussian messenger sent to Wellington in the early morning and therefore Wellington could not have wasted time.

IMHO it would have been/ still is better to admit that the Wellington thesis was wrong and to focus on still existing
issues, this would have avoided a lot of the self inflicted damage. But this in of course only the opinion of an amateur, whose profession is not to defend hopeless cases. :-)))

Ulenspiegel

Ah Dave there is but a small line between assertiveness and aggression. For meself, I always suspect aggression as possibly covering for weakness in an argument…

Of course original research on primary sources is of the essence as yours in the Kreigs Archiv shows.

But Ben, I have been pressed in another thread to produce a translation of Krieg 1809 – why should I if secondary claims copied out is acceptable? I could have copied the received wisdom on my own on Marengo and you would not have been any the wiser. Likewise, I have not engaged ina "review" campaign against rival works – I have made my point where Kevin has every opportunity to answer straight away.

I would commend the late Col Elting's comments about bringing new material to the table, wherein he notes that things get a bit hot. You will also be on the end of sustained campaigns over many years, whose effects the average reader may not appreciate.

Ulen – Hussey cannot read German, so he only disputed them with English materials – it is like Marengo being atatcked solely with Petit and Coignet or MAA299 with Knotel jnr. It may sound convincing – until you consider the underlying source used in the attack. I would agree that PH would havge done better to put his hand up, but the venom behind Hussey's campaign was such that it soon bogged into a position where neither would admit anything wrong. the point I would make to you is that they don't challenge the rest of PH's two volumes.

Dave Hollins wrote: "Hussey cannot read German, so he only disputed them with English materials .."

Hussey came with UK sources to the conclusion, that there was very likely no messenger in the early morning.

A few years later somebody dug out the century old Pflugk-Hartung book (most references are German sources) and here the author (Pf-Ha) came to exactly the same conclusion.

So is Hussey's assumed inability to read German an pro for your case, or would it simply diminish the chance, that he acted dishonestly, i.e. knew the Pf-Ha work, but did give it in his reference section? For the question of the crucial messenger, it clearly weakens your defense of PH.

Ulenspiegel

KFK writes about Dave Hollins bok about the Austrian artilleriy:

"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
"

Errors such as …., and citation of a source, otherwise keep silence or state clearly that this is the usual sweeping KF Kiley opinion

Ulen – I am not "defending" Peter as it is up to him to make his case. PH reached his conclusion on the back of reading all the materials, Hussey used Uk material, which is less. Top suggest therefore that Hussey "debunked" PH is not correctas he did not use all the materials. I invarioably get the same thing on Marengo – my "crime" according to Kevin was not to use Elting, so you mightv say that "debunked" me using noted sources. That the author did not see much of the material evidence rather weakens the claim. If they have been over all the material, hen fine, it seems that they have a case, but simply saying that usinga few sources from one side proves anything is manifestly wrong.

"There are errors in it" in NV72 – and hopw would kebvin know, a) not having read the materials and b) getting it all wrong in his own book? I had the usual "must be handled with care" nonsense – better than he had spent his time reading some sources rather than making up G's 1762 report and embellishing his bibliography.

This is a Hamilton-Williams thread.
Lots of bad talking about that man so far, but where are the facts?
did he fabricate events or sources? Did he produce outright lies?
If the book is full of lies why not present them and make the case like Greg pedlow did.
A man who gets publicly thrown in the mud like him deserves at least this.

FWIW (and from memory, so correct me if I am wrong), I believe the SAHR rebuttal indicated that several of the sources mentioned are only available via closed archives, where all visitors must specifically sign in. Evidently the archives that housed some material in question never had a record of HW visiting.

Regardless, even if the research is simply misdocumented and not fabricated, that would be enough for an undergrad to get an F at the college I work for and likely a trip to judiciary for an honor violation.

JMTSW, YMMV,

Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Hey Ste(ph)ven
Just rushed back to catch up on the thread (pant, pant, pant).
Better a dog than a bitch eh? Haw! Haw! Haw!
Yours sniffingly
Gerry

Wow, what a great thread. I had no idea of this controversy. When I read the book a few years ago (at the recommendation of another wargamer who insisted it would set me straight on Waterloo), I smelled a rat. How can every single other historian miss this, or get it wrong, on conspire to create a bias?

Too bad, I liked the book. The details of the battle were my favorite part. From what I'm reading here I just need to count it as trash.

It's currently on my Napoleonics shelf between books by Bowden and Glover….is that bad? I think I'll move it next to my Giese book on how the Masons saved Ney.

Evan/Iglo – it was my review in AoN in 95 (and to take Whirlwind's point, H-W never rebutted anything) that lit the blue touch paper, as the Waterloo argument had got a bit bogged down in minutiae. the review took him to bits at almost every level – he invented an entire Austrian archive! What else can you do?

And still, after all these postings, no one has listed actual errors of fact in the contents of the book, pointing so far only to citations.

A question, is it ethicaly acceptable to tell one and all that a book is a 'pack of lies' and useless (effectively, but not explicitly saying to people not to purchase the book) without also mentioning that ALL the errors in that volume are in citations, and as yet no factual errors have appeared????

" is it ethicaly acceptable to tell one and all that a book is a 'pack of lies' and useless"

I'd say we have received proof from several sources that the author has made several fabrications about his sources. Also several rebuttals of his errors and fabrications have been indicated in this thread for anyone to check should an anyone interested cared enough (at least AoN and one of the napoleonic forums).

For me a fabrication about the sources is something very serious and enough for not reading that book from that supposed historian. I can understand and discuss missunderstandings or errors in a book, but never fabrications.

got to agree with hos, I would like to know some examples of the actual errors in the book. The foot notes are one thing but can someone explain that sections of chapters are wrong, lies or incorrect?

Regards
Shane

Talking about errors in the book, making a quick search I found this:

link

It is a long time since I read HW's New Perspectives, but I would take issue with his stance on the Sibornes, which is the backbone of his argument. He stated that there had been a cover up, that the published Waterloo Letters had been heavily edited by Herbert Siborne, and those that were at odds with his father's model and history were deliberately left out. HW found these letters in the British library stating they they had been untouched for a century and when read "a new picture began to emerge". Anyone who has seen these letters, now readily available in Gareth Glover's book, will see that HWs statements are complete nonsense.

HW also says that Siborne had no correspondence with Hanoverian, Netherlands, Brunswick and Prussian sources, insinuating that he could not read German. Again this is not true. There are a large number of German documents, many of which were used to describe the role of these troops in his history. The fact that he could indeed understand German is confirmed in a letter from the Prussian Ambassador to Britain.

One fair criticism levelled at Siborne is the dismissal of the Dutch Belgian contribution, and here HW has a valid point.

The actual battle description contains absolutely no "new perspectives" and is a great disappointment. Indeed it shows HWs almost complete lack of knowledge of tactical issues, misinterpreting Shaw Kennedy's deployment description, and frequently referring to quarter distance columns as "columns of fours" or "four deep columns". It would be easy to forgive these minor irritations if HW hadn't accused Siborne of being completely ignorant of period tactics, citing a letter from Massena's son as evidence – a letter which does not seem to exist, although I stand to be corrected here.

Palafox that link talking about lancers and stabbing men on the ground could, at a stretch, be talking about a lancer being able to strike a man on the ground easily, whereas a sword does so with great effort (most of the passages cited describe the sword armed riders having to stoop, stretch etc etc.

Either way, if that is the closest we can find to content factual error in 'new perspectives' then we realy have VERY little to show after so many postings on this thread alone.

I have my doubts if closed archives allow you to check the visitor lists, notably for past years.
and even if, I doubt that someone who doesn´t even get in is still allowed to check the visitor lists.

All accusations so far are along the line of H-W having made up or even fabricated his footnotes, creating the air of a genuine archive researcher.

Even this is not yet fully proven.

And even if its true,what does this tell us about the quality of the book.

I just checked the work of an undisputed master, Christopher Duffy´s biography of Old Fritz, not a single archive source.

There´s is absolutly no need to check the archives to write an excellent Waterloo book.

If H-W has made factual mistakes its easy to check this, there exist hundreds of books on that topic. The standard works are well known.

The obsession with archives might all to often just be a hobby historians obsession, some sort of an substitute for an academic degree.

How can anyone who visits a military archive once or twice a year during a vacation trip, think he can compete with one or two generations of staff historians who have spent hundreds of man years there and were much much closer to the events than we are today.
Napoleonics is not ancient egypt, nobody will find a rosetta stone or something like this.
These people did virtually write mountains of books at a time when napoleonics was current politics and current military affairs. There is in many/most cases no need to go down into the basement and open dusty cartons.

This might indeed indicate that H-W might perhaps indeed have fabricated or uneffectively plagiated his footnotes, but he did this very likely just to meet certain standards of the hobby historian community.
perhaps he was indeed so dumb or enthusiastic and did spend months in the hannoverian military archive, but just messed up the documentation of his book.

For the reader, its quite irrelevant.

Well its pretty difficult to write anything thats factual about events that happened 200 years ago without relying upon historical sources.
There are no "facts" in any of these books other than those recorded in historical records and source documents.
So if H-W has fabricated entire sources then it pretty much invalidates any "facts" he may try to present.
I,m pretty certain for all his alleged indiscretions H-W wasnt actually at Waterloo and couldnt therefore present any real facts about the battle.
Like every other author he is reliant upon an examination of the historical record.
His mistake was picking the most examined battle of the period and trying to pass off duff sources.
The majority of readers ,including myself, would probably have been entirely oblivious to this were it not for others who have spent years delving in to the myriad of real sources and were able to spot his lies.
I for one dont now expect them to deliver a point by point list of sections of his books by reference to the made up sources.
Its one thing for an author to be shown to have made a genuine mistake because either they dont have access to all the availlable sources or because they place a different interpretation on the records or overstate the value of less significant secondary sources but this guy has made shed loads of the history up.
Other authors may disagree on the accuracy of parts of each others books for a variety of reasons but I bet nothing disgusts them more than the thought that they have busted their guts trying to write as accurate a book as they can only for some numpty to write a work of fiction masquerading as some new napoleonic holy grail of a history.
But the maps are still good

cptn snort,
at least something more substantial.
Siborne dealing with Waterloo is naturally not the battle itsself.
All writers have their agenda and its often not the best parts of their books.
For example in Houssaye´s waterloo book , which is widely considered a masterpiece, the very much pro nappy author makes in my opinion far stretched statements to put the blame on Grouchy.
I think an author should have this artistic freedom, its what makes the difference between 500 books all dealing with the same topic and the same basic facts.
historians on tactical basics is indeed an interesting topic, a lot of great names have a blind spot there, as far as I see it.
As far as I know the British at Waterloo did form four deep, so why not have the quarter distance column made up of four deep elements, it might just be consequent,at least at first sight, perhaps I miss something here.

"Either way, if that is the closest we can find to content factual error in 'new perspectives' then we realy have VERY little to show after so many postings on this thread alone."

Maybe you have not read it yet as you posted after him but Captn. Snort has already pointed something rather interesting.

BTW.

" about lancers and stabbing men on the ground could, at a stretch, be talking about a lancer being able to strike a man on the ground easily, whereas a sword does so with great effort (most of the passages cited describe the sword armed riders having to stoop, stretch etc etc."

Not correct, a lancer also has to stop, etc, etc.. HW stated clearly that it was something virtually impossible so maybe he was not checking enough to make such assertion.

Thanks Jacko – you have pretty much summed it up and as Palafox says, Capt Snort has included some key points to add to that nonsense about comms running through Mons.

Iglo actually includes a key point about Book 2 – namely that what was claimed to be new research was a mix of H-W's opinions and uncritically copied works like Houssaye. Certainly, it is quite possible to write a good book without looking in a single archive – Chandler happily said he did that with camps of Nap – but that is not what you are being presented with here. What you are being told is that you are getting new work to give you a new angle on key subjects – then no doubt you might repeat yourself. That is the lie at the heart of both books.

"I think an author should have this artistic freedom, its what makes the difference between 500 books all dealing with the same topic and the same basic facts."

God protect us from historians with 'artistic freedom'. Finding the truth is hard eough.
Save that for novels. When I read a factual book I want just that- facts. And if it comes across as dry or re-hashed then so be it.
As for DHW- if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a fraud. The man just isn't kosher is he?
Do we really need chapter and verse on what was wrong about his tomes?
Would you by a used car off him? No, neither would I.
I wouldn't waste any more time discussing him on this thread to be honest.
He isn't worth the trouble.

with "artistic freedom" I was specifically refering to Houssayes view of Grouchy´s role, which is just Houssaye´s ex post view how that man should have acted, and every reader realizes this.
In case of Siborne, Snort, who did read siborne states that H-W was somehow right considering Siborne´s handling of the Dutch/belgian contribution, in short H-W is not completly off.
Snort, who did read Siborne , states that in his opinion Siborne did understand german, while H-W states that Siborne must have had a language problem.
Actually the topic very likely is not the language skills of Siborne, but the question if Siborne did accuratly portray the german contribution to Waterloo.

H-W thinks not, this is the issue.

In this context a lack of language skills is even an excuse for Siborne.

The key question is if siborne did accuratly portray the german contribution to Waterloo.

Lets just assume that Siborne has not filled half of his book with what the german contingents did at Waterloo, so H-W is very likely right again this time , at least from his standpoint.

Another point is indeed if it was Siborne´s mission to write german military history, but thats open to debate.