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

'otherwise keep silence or state clearly that this is the usual sweeping KF Kiley opinion'

I would suggest curbing your tongue. You have no right to tell anyone to 'keep silence' unless of course someone has died without anyone knowing about it and you now own and run the forum and site?

The errors that I pointed out in the review that was censored was quite clear on what was wrong in the volume. If you'd like me to list them, then you may ask. Otherwise I would suggest keeping a civil tongue in your head.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hi, Kevin,
although the shrill screaming you get here is sometimes unsettling, it is preferable to silence.
Silence means no questions being asked, no evidence being sifted, no opinions & cases being proferred.
There are some who would prefer the uncritical nature of silence here.
Some who try to bully others into holding their tongues.
Bullying & badgering until a poster with different views shuts up & goes away.
Or, in my case, having my employer bombarded by complaints about me from a poster here.
Not to worry as we've agreed he's a "nutter" but it's part of the picture, isn't it?
donald

Amen,

It seems the same few who delight in trying to stomp on anyone else for having opinions or speaking his mind. I get disgusted that every thread seems to be hijacked by these same few who just cannot stay on topic and degrade every thread to the same low denominator, namely the Hollins/Kiley argument. This argument of which is totally one sided as Kevin says nothing but gets dragged back into the fight each and every time. I wonder sometimes how he stays so patient at the constant harassment and calculated salvos fired off by these same few people.

Just wish it would stop.

Shane

What is this? A contest to see who can advance the silliest argument??

Dave – critics don't attack the other stuff in PH's book because they don't have a problem with the other stuff. It's the speculation that Wellington deliberately set up the Prussians that everyone is interested in and so it is the subject of debate. The claim of an early message from Zieten is key. Kick that leg away and you are arguing that PH can still perch on a two legged stool. JvP-H went over the same material that PH uses, and some that PH cannot use because it has been lost in time. And JvP-H persuasively argues that the early message is a fiction. The other sources PH brings to the question are featherweight. So it's not the glaring misjudgment in the footnote, but JvP-H's argument that is the problem for PH. Don't obfuscate.

Capt. Iglo, if you think someone should defend DH-W, no one is stopping you. Get back to us in 6 months… The complaints about the references have been detailed, extensive, and out for quite a while. The publisher and author have ample opportunity to defend or explain the issue. It isn't a question of document X being in carton B rather than A, 'cause we don't have carton B and we don't have document X either… Citing Baring rather that Bemish is a claim to have avoided any mistakes Bemish may have made and to have knowledge of everything Baring said, not just what Bemish thought important. It is a token of good faith with the reader, not a stylistic nicety.

Equating the problems in DH-W and PH books is deceptive. DH-W had a whole speculative "New Perspectives" bit about the "conspiracy" to bring down Napoleon. I don't remember the details and no one else here does either 'cause it was so batty to begin with. What is being argued is whether his battle description is sound and whether it brings anything useful. PH's speculations are well supported with real references that others can review and decide for themselves. Then there is all the other material about Prussian activities in the first days, the communications, the competition for military resources, that appear to be a valuable addition.

One of the other reviewers on Amazon commented that DH-W does frequently depart from the conventional account of Waterloo (Napoleon everywhere, Wellington stuck under an elm) and never gives any warning to the unknowlegaable reader nor explanation of what evidence and reasoning leads him to a different conclusion, so, yeah, I think someone could kick the snot out of it, but I doubt it is worth the time…

-----

Shane quit whining. No one "made" KK jump in. He just enjoys it. If you don't, go read a different thread.

-----

Gentlemen of the old school:

"I am not a crook!"

"I did not have sex with that woman!"

"I did not borrow that book!"

;-)

NSN

nvrsaynvr

I started the damned thread, or are you too blind to see that !!!!

to disguss DW and his book, not Hollins arguing and bitching about Kevin. If you don't like it why don't you stop whinging and go play with your other toys mate!

On a more constructive note, let me say Barbero's "Battle: A New History of Waterloo" is very good – it has some very shrewd insights about the course of the battle that were new to me.

NSN

>>>>No one "made" KK jump in. He just enjoys it.<<<<

No one asked Hollins to drag the Artillery duel to this thread either.

and I doubt Kevin enjoys this, via personal emails he has reiterated to me several times how sick and tired of it he has become.

Shane

Ochoin.
Sorry to here that. I'm shocked that some one would act in such an extreme manner.
Can I ask if they referenced any particular thread here?
Did your boss know that you paint toy soldiers? :0)
regards
Max

David Hollins wrote :
"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 canister."

History doesn't have to make sense, only fiction has…

Napoleon Bonaparte had no choice but to fight the battle that was imposed on him by the Austrians. The whole campaign was plagued, on the French side, by lack of artillery (not much guns, but horses to pull them mostly).

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

Crossard's works were published in 1829. Years after Mras published the story of the collapse of the Garde Consulaire. One could say that this makes his testimony dubious. At least this is the way you dismiss most French sources about this battle…

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

For Stutterheim to be true, the French must loose about four guns in the vicinity of the Garde Consulaire infantry last stand. We know that the guns were already assigned to line units before the battle (see de Cugnac).

So it would mean that the guns were detached from the line units after they were engaged to be relocated with the Garde Consulaire infantry, and then lost when the Grenadiers broke. Does this story make sense ? Now, which guns were lost by the Garde Consulaire artillery ?

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

Crossard was published in 1829…

The note on the DR1 regimental history is nowhere to be found, only an allusion to it exists. Its source is nowhere to be found. It's just a note that is supposed to have been added : no author, no date, no source, nothing.

Hochenegg and Rauch witness something, but they give no hint that the units they saw were the Garde Consulaire. We know that another French unit was taken prisoner in an isolated farm. It is almost sure that this is the unit they saw. In order to believe that those were the prisoners of the Garde Consulaire you need to do a leap of faith.

Mras is not clearly independant from Stutterheim. They worked on the same material. Mras could access the Stutterheim text. When you read the Mras version of the event, it is striking how the only changes are made to get rid of the most obvious incoherences of the Stutterheim text. Moreover, you have yet to produce any evidence that Mras is independant from Stutterheim. For me, once again it seems that you put faith in the fact that Mras is independant to Stutterheim.

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

Soulès citation tells nothing of a collapse of the Grenadiers…

As for Brabant tale, it seems a little extraordinary and does not account for four guns lost to the Austrians.

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

Once again, what you call the whole Garde Consulaire may not include the artillery… In fact, it is almost certain it doesn't.

David Hollins wrote :
"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."

You don't know how much time it took. Maybe the troops were already formed up. You have to assume too many things to have the Stutterheim story to make sense.

To sum up my position, your account of the collapse of the Garde Consulaire infantry is a theory that is not backed up with evidences. All the hints point to a story forged around 1810 in the Austrian officers circles. Only publications in the 1820's tell this story (Stutterheim account was not published until it appeared in Mras).

Why did the Austrians let the French tell the story of a glorious Garde Consulaire ? Why did the "Neue Bellona" a German newspaper tell the same story long before the French official account of the battle was published ?

It is revelant to the topic as it shows how somebody can convince himself of a story that he wants to believe. All the material is then seen in this light, everything that says otherwise if "propaganda" outright lies, etc. While all that points in the "right" direction is taken as face value (though sometimes it has to be bent a little…) Maybe I am myself self-delusioned. But then, where are the guns ? Who lost them ? Who led this four guns battery ?

It is so easy to bash Peter Hofschröer because he is banned.

For those who just one to read more about Peter Hofschröer's argument and to base their own view and just more than one article (which is highly specualtive as well) by von Plugk – Hartunng

The Age of Napoleon, nr.22,

Waterloo Myths – The Outbreak of Hostilities by Peter Hofschröer, p. 32 – 40 (more than one source listed)

The Age of Napoleon, nr. 25

Siborne & The Zieten Message, by Peter Hofschröer, p. 26 – 32

The Age of Napoleon, Nr. 28

Quatre Bras – The Unexpected Battle, by Peter Hofschröer, p. 8 – 12

The Age of Napoleon, Nr. 29

Interview with Peter Hofschröer, p. 11 – 14

The Age of Napoleon, Nr. 30

Were the Prussian Positions at Ligny Exposed, by Peter Hofschröer. p. 20 – 26

Happy reading

"It is so easy to bash Peter Hofschröer because he is banned."

I would have thought it was more a case of it being that unfortunately Peters own actions have prevented his views from being able to be put here directly, but must be passed to us third person.

But given that it is just that, his actions, that have prevented it, combined with the obvious conclusion that even if he were here his comments would perhaps consist of more of what can best be described as curious ramblings, it may be that it is his own fault, and no great loss to the conversation.

Well, I would agree that this thread has gone far out beyond H-W into a debate about sources and indeed what happens when a controversial event is involved.

Shane, My sole point about Kevin is that he could listed NV72 without agreeing with some of my conclusions. I mentioned MCConnell's dictum on bibliographies and that is relevant to many recent authors, in that they are designed to give an impression of more work having been done that actually was – ie: you have to get down to what was actually used before deciding whether a book is any good.

NSN – the point I was making is often what lies behind a focus on one event, which is designed to undermine the whole book, when the crioti9cs cannot. You can see that too in Kevin's shabby hatchet job on the new artillery book. I had started by saying (as above to Shane) that you can cite a work's data without agreeing with its conclusion. Now, either that was a mistake by P-H or he is deliberately trying to mislead – to decide you often have to look at the overall work. I do not see anyone trying to accuse PH of doing this elsewhere – indeed, they do not dispute the rest of his book. Consequently, the presumption must be mistake in that PH's own interpretation of the data differed from Pf-Ha, but obviously PH's case is partly based on that material. Whether PH's overall case stands up is down to him and the evidence he produces, but don't forget that his views about what has been fabricated later are based on a huge pile of material (notably the De Lancey disposition, which is obviously faked). That does not make him right, but it does show that you cannot focus on one account of one episode to try try to smear a whole work (which is implied above a bit). H-W has a consistent track record throughout his works and life story, whereas PH's detractors do not run any claims against the rest of his book. It is like this question of bibliographies and footnotes – a pattern will give away the truth.

It is essential to work out what is primary and what is secondary. Then you need to look at what has happened with the secondary info, which is in every account (how does an ordinary soldier know the estimate of the enemy force size?). Then the material must both make sense and fit with other material – even then, it can often help to realise where a story has come from as tales can be transposed from a an original source.

Phillipe, it does not help to try to deflect this process with accusation about "dismissing whole accounts" – there are about 70 primary accounts of Marengo of which all but 8 are French. I don't dismiss any account, but test it to see how it fits and whether some material is secondary.

So, let us start with the Guard infantry. Hochenegg talks about "ein feindlicher Bataillon" (an enemy battalion), which supports the view we have all now reached that the main episode only involved the main Guard battalion and that the part-batt of 300 were handing out ammunition to Coignet and his chums. It confirms that this one battalion is moving in isolation. So, we are talking about 5-600 men. What else do we know? The only other French primary material tells us that 200 got out, so what has happened top 3-400 men? At the very least this is inconsistent with Petit's claim that the Guard got out in a square with all its wounded, but let us look at the key issue: where is the primary account from a participant?

Contrary to your "red herring" about the French being allowed "to get away with it", in fact Stutterheim B includes a direct challenge to produce the primary French account and in the intervening 185 years, none has surfaced. Likewise, the French propaganda had triumphed on the subject of the continental battles for nearly two hundred years. You have to hand it to Nap's propaganda and in this case, accounts were given to Neue Bellona and (in Sept 1800) the British Military Library journal plus Petit was translated and published in New York in 1801. All this demonstrates along with the Bulletin is that propaganda is involvved here. N wasn't forced to fight a battle – he had partly believed a double-agent and only just got away with victory, when defeat would have been the end of everything.

Anyway, back to the Guard. So, there is no primary account – just 3-400 going missing. What happened – do tell us and produce your evidence.

Stutterheim A was independent from Mras as it was written in 1811, whereas Mras was written in the early 1820s (pub 1822-3) at a time when Stutterheim's account of hte first half of the Second Coalition campaign had also been written. There are contradictions in the texts and Mras goes vague, where S gives detail – eg: on the Guard, where A says "some Imperial cavalry, among which the Bussy distinguished themselves", but Mras is four squadrons of Hussars and Stutterheim B goes for two Bussy sqdns and two Nauendorff Hussar sqdns. Given where the Bussy/Nauendorff listing comes from and an episode involving some Austrian cavalry further north around this time, I doubt the Bussy were involved (although petit includes an anecdote placing them there).

Rauch says he clearly sees "part of our cavalry fall on the enemy rear" and about 1000 prisoners passed his position near the Marengo bridge. The farm is just Nap's propaganda as most were not even moved from there after the place was taken just after Melas and Radetzky had ridden round the back – Coignet had seen them do it and this was some tome before he was back in the vines, which is when the Guard infantry showed up.

DR1 were certainly the cavalry involved and the hand-written note is quoted verbatim in describing the event plus it lists the men, who received bravery medals (7 of the ten given to the regt went to these two sqdns). This cannot have ben created a century later as the author would not know and the method used is no different from the citations on French weapons d'honneur, which are among the accounts we have used.

Kellerman says that he saw the Guard being overwhelmed.

What are we supposed to make of all then? We are invited to believe a story by a man, who did not see the events. Indeed, Quiot's account of "two squares" does point us to the origin of the tale – guard seem to have formed square briefly as they moved up to support the 28e anchoring Lannes' right, but by then, the Lobkowitz were being called off. We read of the Guard having little ammo, no guns and no cavalry – well, except the Guard had full ammo pouches and Murat's cavalry waded in to support them. Then they withdraw in a square with their wounded, which is exactly what the 28e did, having been in square all day because they had little ammo.

What about the final episode? The Guard are in column and turn left into line to fire on Schellenberg's column. Why form a square and when did they do it? Like the lack of guns, their task means that the fable makes no sense. 130 muskets? What will that do? You cannot say that what the accounts support is wrong and then provide no explanation yourself.

As to the guns, there is always a problem, but the allocation and reallocation of guns is something clearly going on here – and where were the French infantry when the Guard infantry arrived? in the vines, where an artillery position is useless. Stutterheim incidentally claims 4 guns were captured, but also notes that ten guns and two howitzers were captured overall. Crossard is more important as he is only talking about his sector – and he says 4 guns and 1 howitzer. Whil he is usually adduced as proof of the guns taken from the Guard, I am only adding him in. You cannot say that the passage of time means something is wrong – I can tell you about key events in my own life almost exactly 20 years ago, but I cannot give you any detail on what I was doing this time last year. Brabant did exist, but the tale may be propaganda as it appears in the British Military Library journal. Don't forget also that Marmont's battery at the end was composed of what he could find.

It does not help to make assertions about only believing what I want to believe as I don't do it anywhere else. The whole battle account has to stand up against the material available and it must also make sense. No part of the Guard moved off from TdG until after 11 a.m., as it is only then that the recall messages went out. The Guard infantry cannot have arrived until Coignet was back in the vines (ie: the french left had collapsed). Soult and the "victory letter" plus all the prior events independently place this well after 2.30 p.m. It is 10km from Torre di garrofoli to the vines along a bad road.

I'm afraid that your version relies on a supposed conspiracy taking place 12 years before anything was published and claims, which have no primary evidence to back them. the received wisdom has been published without the benefit of Soules and the Austrian accounts, yet it contains no primary account. Like most of the received wisdom on the battle, it does not make sense, which is why we went to look at what we could find – and still material turns up after that. 5-600 men went up and just 200 came back – what happened and how does this fit into Petit's account?

Evan/Iglo – the problem is that wityhout going back to Siborne and other accounts, you cannot know whether H-W is right or not, given his track record. Hence it is worthless as you may as well do the work yourself.

Dave,
you naturally can say the same about your friend Peter Hofschroer.
The difference is that Hofschroer got nailed in one case and still tries to fool the people on this one if he has the chance to.
I still can´t see that H-W got nailed yet.
There is some work needed, no doubt.
In my opinion, no work, no right to say "lies".

No, Evan, PH has wrongly claimed that Pf-Ha backed him in his conclusion, but there is no dispute that PH looked at Pf-Ha's work along with many other works. H-W has a track record of lies. It is all laid out above – when he stuck his own neck out and said "I am right and here is the citation to prove it", it turned out to be nowhere near it.

The Hofschroer papers in the peer-reviewed journal "War in History" and the replies by Hussey:

War in History (1998) 5(2) p176-203 (Hofschroer)
War in History (1999) 6(1) p88-116 (Hussey)
War in History (1999) 6(4) p468-478 (Hofschroer)
War in History (2000) 7(4) p463-480 (Hussey)

@v.Winterfeld

It is correct that Pfugk-Hartung, Hofschroer and other are highly speculative (if enough hard facts were available the discussion would not have been raised at all:-))), but when we discuss the most likely version, which can be derived from the sources, Pflugk-Hartung and Hussey have IMHO the better arguments.

Ulenspiegel

As far as I can see it; it is the difference between interpreting evidence (PH, KK, & DH); and making evidence up (HW).

The first is what a historian does, the second is what a crook does…

Having read this thread and numerous other threads in which books are reviewed and authors attacked, I have decided never to read such threads again. I only wish that those who perpetually exchange such bitter and childish comments would stop and leave the forum to Napoleonic Discussion which is the name of the Board.

I have stifled the main 8 contributors and I am sure that in their tantrums they will probably stifle me in return out of spite.

I cannot believe that grown intelligent men can devote part of their days to this type of pathetic carry-on and that once again we see Napoleonic threads hi-jacked by the same people again and again. I really do wish that the editor would intervene to put an end to this type of behaviour once and for all.

Well he tried – by having a 'History' heading.
Poor naming though as it should have been named 'Arguement' to differentiate it properly from 'Discussion'.
Maybe you should ask big Bob, if the software works that way, to chuck any of these threads into Arguement(/flame/troll).
At least then everyone would know where to go for a bitch slap.

What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death…

Yep- why don't we have more- "would you shag Amy Winehouse?" threads instead.
BenW- the trouble with PH's interpretations is that they're tainted with bias. He's got a flee in his underpants about Wellington, so whenever he sees a source that's pro- Wellington, he ignores it. When he sees a possible anti-Wellington angle, he seizes it with relish.
It's this partizanship which we see time and again with historians that's unforgiveable. These people have priveliged access to primary sources. We rely on them to bring us the truth. Time and again they just end up presenting us with their own petty minded, and even commercially driven, prejudices.

I'm also sick of the bitching but at least we learn along the way- even if it is sometimes a bumby ride.

Steve.

As predicted I have picked up one stifle within an hour of my post. I do not know who stifled me but it is sad.

As the thread is now derailed from its origin and talking about books I have just bought this morning Adkin Waterloo companion through Amazon (good price, 30 pounds including shipping). From what I've seen it's a known book with few bad criticism so I'll take as it's a good book.

>>>>As predicted I have picked up one stifle within an hour of my post. I do not know who stifled me but it is sad.<<<<

And you wonder why??

maybe one of us "8" whom you stifled turned around and stifled you…sheeesh, get out of the kitshen if ya can't stand the heat mate lol

kitchen*

Steve J – an emphatic NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

very good points SteveJ, I agree totally.

Dave
I hope that emphatic no is in answer to the question whether you would shag Miss Winehouse and not confirmation that you have familiarity with Mr Hs underpants!

Just for the record- here's another NNOOOOOO!

;-)

Would someone let me know how I can 'stifle' Broglie? I think if we all 'stifled' him he might feel better.

How do I un-'stifle' him after his 'time-out' is over?

Steve

Go to his personal page by pressing his name and then press the stifle button. Then go back the same way and unstifle him.

Has anyone ever read a book, found irritating failings of style and objectivity, and disagreed profoundly with its conclusions; but on rereading it years later you finally appreciate it as a work of real merit?
Well, DHW's 'New Perspectives' isn't one of those books.

I don't know any of the people mentioned here other than through their work. but I second Palafox in this. If you don't have them, buy a copy of Adkin, and a borrow a copy of DHW- read them and appreciate the difference.

What distinguishes Adkin's work in my view (and Barbero's too) from the DHW is a sense of objectivity and genuinely trying to get the best version of events from an imperfect set of records and recollections. Where conflict between sources is irreconcilable- Adkin says so and leaves us to interpret, rather than overemphasise sources which support a favoured agenda, and reduce, traduce or omit those which oppose it.

There is a very strong sense of agenda in the work of DHW (and I think PH's too unfortuately); with an emphasis on 'discovering' embarrassing secrets and conspiracies of silence which remind me more of discussions of the death of JFK than the battle of Waterloo. In my view PH is miles ahead of DHW as a genuinely diligent and accomplished historical researcher, but the desire to 'rebalance' reputations seems so strong that it can lead his writing onto historical thin ice- and wet feet, as the JvPH saga illustrated.

DHW's oeuvre however plunged right through the historical ice never to emerge. This thread persuaded me to dig 'New Perspectives' out from the far corner towards which its been progressivly relegated by later and better books. It still reads to me as entry level sensationalist revisionism of the shoddiest kind, shot through with with clumsy and juvenile polemic asides.

I promised myself I wouldn't bore everyone with examples but here are a couple. As soon as I opened the book I noticed the caption on the illustration of Saxe-Weimar's staff conference (between pps 224 and 225) which inaccurately criticise British references to the Orange Nassau Regt and leads DHW to a quite preposterous unsubstaniated swipe at Siborne's motivation. One might also compare the trenchant criticism of Wellington's staff work with the rather mild treatment of the orders given to D'Erlon on 16 June. Basic factual inaccuracies are absolutely legion, unhorsed members of the Union Brigade encumbered by heavy cuff topped boots (p302) to pick another random example.

Jumble sale.

CPTN Iglo,

To briefly answer a couple of your points, I would not have mentioned HW's continual references to 4 deep columns or column of fours if it had not been for his rather ironic suggestion that Siborne did not understand the manouevres of the period. The British 4 deep line was a compromise formation, and there was no regulated method for its formation, therefore at Waterloo we find various methods: By forming the right wing in front of the left, or by forming every company's right subdivision in front of its left, or even by splitting a square halfway across its rear face and wheeling up the sides. If you know how a British square was formed from a quarter distance column, you will appreciate just how irregular a line formed by the latter method would be. HW suggests that the army was formed 4 deep from the off, which shows a lack of appreciation for the ad hoc manner in which this formation was actually used. He also completely misunderstands Shaw Kennedy's description of the 3rd Division's deployment.
This is a technical misunderstanding on HW's part, and shouldn't be seen as a major issue with his book.

In relation to the Germans, I would imagine that Siborne was comfortable with the language, as traces of much German correspondence can be found in his History. I would not like to comment on whether he dealt with the Germans fairly, as I have few comparisons, but they enjoy far more detailed coverage in his volume than in HW's. The Prussian movements are also covered in great detail. In Siborne's correspondence there is a letter written by a Captain Wagner of the Prussian Staff who says:

"There exists neither in the German nor the French language a work that contains more details about the fighting in the village of Plancenoit than the description signed by you which I received".

Siborne is far from being perfect, but he does not deserve the bashing administered by HW. If you haven't got a copy, I would recommend it highly, if you do not own a copy of New Perspectives, I wouldn't waste money on it.

Dave,

Thanks for that. You failed to mention that I had to sign-in first! I figured it out, though. All is forgiven. <;^}

Ok, Broglie, you are in time-out for ten minuets. Next time it will be 15 minuets – so mind your 'p's and 'q's.

I was surprised to see that I had been 'stifled' – even more surprised to see who 'stifled' me! Some people have some explaining to do – ye, sure, ya betcha.

Steve

Ok, Broglie, you're out of 'time-out'. Let this be a lesson to you. I am not someone that can be trifeled with!

Steve

Steve,

Since this thread has gone into nit-picking territory, I will point out that you only stifled Borglie for 9 minutes and that you still owe him one. Nit picked, back to my seat on the sidelines.

Bags,

Curb your tongue then keep a civil tongue in your head! [Is that physically possible? Oh, well!] As you know, I am a man of great precision, unless I chose to be otherwise, in which case I would not appear to be a man of great precision, but I still would be, really, if you get my drift.

Actually, I ‘stifled' the now chastened Broglie one minute prior to the posting of his sentence. See the above paragraph.

So, Bags, unless you want a ten minute ‘timeout' yourself, mind YOUR ‘p's and ‘q's.

No more Mister Nice Guy. Hey, I could be NMMNG on the TMP Forum!

Steve

First, apologies to Iglo and Evan polley – they are not the same person as I had thought!

Seems that PH has been seriously misrepresented here – I have told by someone else (and I have not spoken to PH for about a month!) what I thought was the case. Apparently, in order for Pflugk-Harttung's hyptohesis to be right, (that Wellington did not receive news of the attack until around 1800-1900 on 15th June), you have to reject every other
piece of info, which suggests otherwise, namely Gleig, Jackson, Scovell and Wellington himself. These are all primary sources, albeit recording some time after the
events, while Pf-H is a secondary source based on material that, apparently, no longer exists.

So, I seem to be right then – read the Pf-Ha data in connection with other sources and it backs up PH, although he made a single (albeit unfortunately significant) error in saying Pf-Ha's conclusion agreed with him. Take Pf-Ha in isolation (or a selection of Uk sources in isolation) and claim PH is deleiberately trying to mislead with one error and you can make it sound thye other way round – until you address the question of how other pieces fit.

Here is an H-W detail – his claim was that Siborne falsified his account and model for financial gain. H-W cites MS 34703 of the Siborne letters as an example of Siborne's prejudice in this respect and further alludes to an unidentified folio in MS 34703 with a pencilled note. There are pencilled notes on folis 11 to 17, which are from German sources and all the notes show is that Siborne
understood German, in contrast to HW's claim that he did not. Nothing in MS 34703 corroborates HW's claims.

Dave- any idea who the correspondence is with and which regiment/brigade?
I've got letters here from 34703 but they're not sequential and I can't be arsed going through it all just now!

If it's from a Major Kruse then I haven't got it…

Donald and Shane,

Thanks for what you both said. And you're right, Shane, I don't like this continual arguing, baiting, and sniping that goes on. It's ridiculous and does nothing but cause unneeded rancor. Maybe some folks like chaos of that type, but I surely do not.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave,
he did not make an error.
Hofschroers case was very thin.
the Zieten message is an old little controversy which was already debated and, to most participants satisfaction as far as I see it, solved already over 100 years ago.
I doubt that even larger and well researched works in the last 50 years have discussed this with more than a few sentences or even at all.
Hofschroer did warm it up and did – surprisingly – support the not very supportable minority view.

But he did jump into the ring as the 400 pound gorilla claiming that he would show completely new perspectives based on the german archives and the research of excellent german historians, all widely ignored by the anglocentric british napoleonic community.

Pflugk-Harttung, according to him "the greatest Waterloo historian who has ever lived" did seemlingly support his view, nobody could verify this because Pf-H did write in german.

Without the german connection, he might have been able to write one or two unremarkable articles in a napoleonic magazine, earning some smiles for his anachronistic reasoning.

with the backup of the "german archives" and the "greatest Waterloo historian who has ever lived" he did have a mighty impact.
The Zieten message actually can be seen as the key argument in his case against Wellington.

You can discuss the Zieten message with him endlessly, its like discussing if the world is flat, even the most insistent will give up sooner or later.

If you adress the manner how he did deal with the written legacy of a long gone german historian, he is still in denial and actually uses the same old trick again.

He just claims that you didn´t read or understand Pflugk-Harttungs article, he wants you do cite the key passages, if you don´t deliver he claims you cannot understand german and calls you a liar.

( thats at least how a guy under the name Yorck von Wartenburg did act in a recent discussion on this site, he was later banned, and some, not just me, are convinced that Yorck was actually hoffie himself. He did show a similar reaction in a Napoleon series discussion a few years ago, when he did act under his real name)

He shows a remarkable toughness under pressure, he can even be admired for this.

But a big lie nontheless, and a proven one.

At least in his Yorck incarnation he did talk really bad abot HW , its all not so much off topic.

Dave,
The other evidence:

Gleig – the timing isn't right, so PH posits an earlier "missing message" from Zieten.

Wellington (the de Feltre letter) – an ambiguity that Pedlow addresses in full in his article

Jackson – recalls that, "Early on the 15th June 1815, we learned that the French were crossing the frontier at Charleroi." Exactly when he recalled this is not clear, as it was published 88 years after the battle.

Scovell – "On the 15th, about 3 o'clock p.m. there no longer remained any doubt on the subject…", from his papers. Rather curious lack of context here.

I don't see any of this making any dent in JvP-H's conclusions, but of course it's a matter of opinion.

Anyway, it's rather preposterous to accuse PH's critics of trying to "undermine" or "smear" his book. They simply disagree with his judgment, and have done so from day one, about all sorts of things, from his silly accounting tricks – implying the Deutschephone Hannoverians would naturally serve under the Prussian eagle, to his claims the de Lancey disposition respresent a bird's-eye view of a moment in time, to the alleged lapse in recorded Prussian messages, based on the two imaginary Zieten missives. But since there is no accounting for taste, PH can continue to dismiss them.

The assertion about JvP-H is notable because one cannot dismiss it (although one wishes it wouldn't require 175 posts to figure that out), and because it represents not a common mistake (PH should be lauded for making so few), but a strange misjudgment, and the obvious explanations tend to be telltale. It is what it is, and will remain so.

NSN

>>>>>Bags,

Curb your tongue then keep a civil tongue in your head! [Is that physically possible? Oh, well!] As you know, I am a man of great precision, unless I chose to be otherwise, in which case I would not appear to be a man of great precision, but I still would be, really, if you get my drift.

Actually, I ‘stifled' the now chastened Broglie one minute prior to the posting of his sentence. See the above paragraph.

So, Bags, unless you want a ten minute ‘timeout' yourself, mind YOUR ‘p's and ‘q's.

No more Mister Nice Guy. Hey, I could be NMMNG on the TMP Forum!

Steve<<<<<

Are you like 9 years old or what?

Shane, I think Steve was just being ironic. I thought the post was very funny and had a laugh.
With so much tension lately some sense of humor is very welcomed.

"Pflugk-Harttung, according to him "the greatest Waterloo historian who has ever lived" did seemlingly support his view, nobody could verify this because Pf-H did write in german"

Hardly, since PH gave copies of various obscure articles imn German by Pf-HA and another to pedlow.

Dave

Agreed PH certainly does not try to hide evidence, he is an honourable historian, I just disagree with his conclusions.

To some others: "All" historians have bias, any text that is not a direct original source quote is opinion, and even the selection of original sources is opinionated.

Fine – disagreeing on interpretation is what historical debate is about, which is why it is vital that authors tell the truth aboput where their material comes from (to go back to the start of this thread!). In addition, the point I would make to NSN (which is the same with aspects of Marengo), is that you need to be able to explain the accounts, which don't tally with the conclusion – otherwise that conclusion is under pressure.

I think bias is a very much abused word, casually thrown as a smear when the person making it cannot argue the point. Obviously, if you write about one nation's army, you will go to its sources and what other nationals may say about it can be interesting, but is not that important. Likewise, it seems bizarre to me that when in conjunction with Terry Crowdy, we looked at everything we could find (which was a lot more than any author in between), suddenly I am told I am "biased", when no such criticism is levelled at those, who did not. perhaps that is the critic's bias?

Kevin
If I may offer a suggestion
Stop reviewing books on Amazon.
As far as I can tell your longstanding issues with Mr Hollins originate from one such review by you of one of his books.
I take no sides in that dispute but if you are as hacked off with all of the ensuing years of bickering as you say you are ( and were I you, I would most defnitely be extremely hacked off by now) dont you think that writing another critical review ( however accurate it may be ) of the new Dawson book on Amazon is only going to add to your problems.
At best it will only allow the issues with Mr Hollins to resurface.At worst you could find yourself with untold more years of issues with an entirely new set of people-namely the authors of the new book.
Its just a suggestion on my part but it may allow you to get on with things without continually having to go through the same old dance.
Some may say you are providing a valuable service to the public by arming them with the information they need in relation to any books you have reviewed-and they would be right to say that.The books you review are all in areas where you have more experience than most and you are ideally placed to use that experience.
If it were me I would now be tempted to say "To hell with the public" and start to think of my own well-being and quality of life.
Genuinely most sincerely
Richard Jackson